As a pedagogical point, are folk here mostly familiar with speech act theory? — Banno
Is Austin anywhere arguing against descriptivism in these lectures? — Banno
Can you change the tree with words? Ordering it cut down will certainly change it. — Banno
The conversation above with Corvus has me wondering how much this topic depends on an understanding that language is not purely descriptive. — Banno
Just assume that terrible things are going to happen at any time, and then when they do happen you won't be surprised. Does that help? — Antony Nickles
Get Plan B in place and then get on with it. — Ludwig V
It's not illogical. If you think it is, could you show how? — frank
You've been watching too much Amy Schumer. — Antony Nickles
As I put this above, Austin is pointing out our sufficient ordinary criteria in order to normalize how we address the situations involving "real" vs. "appearance"; in the instance of the other essay, rather than addressing everything as subject to the question: true or false? — Antony Nickles
Careful, now. I also think that the idea that I'm living in a Matrix situation is an implausible fantasy. In particular, I know that the truth of the matter is far stranger than Matrix proposes — Ludwig V
Good stuff. "This was Austin's most important idea: All utterances are the performance of speech acts" — Banno
You can't cut down a tree, or influence it in any way, with words. — Janus
There is a difference between an order and a saw. They do different things. But that is not pertinent. I cut the tree down by giving an order. — Banno
I cut the tree down by giving an order. — Banno
I've never even heard of her. Who is she? Is she a suitable life model for a ancient retired male WASP philosopher? — Ludwig V
1. Language is for expressing, describing and communicating thoughts and the contents of perception.
2. Language never have access to the world direct. (sic)
3. Language is the last activity in the chain of the mental events i.e. you perceive, think, then speak in that order, never the other way around. — Corvus
Yep.So it's not just the words. — frank
Actually, if you are saying that perhaps in this context "real" and "unreal" are more important than "true" or "false", I think you may have a point. After all, part of the problem is that it seems that everything we want to describe can be equally well described in sense-datum language and in ordinary (natural) language. So truth/falsity is arguably not the issue. — Ludwig V
Sounds dubious.Shouldn’t type while biking — Antony Nickles
For the only way in which one can test whether a series of perceptions is veridical, in this sense, is to see whether it is substantiated by further sense-experiences , so that once again the ascription of “ reality ” depends upon the predictive value of the sense-data on which the perceptions are based. So long as the general structure of my sense-data conforms to the expectations that I derive from the memory of my past experience, I remain convinced that I am not living in a dream , and the longer the series of successful predictions is extended, the smaller becomes the probability that I am mistaken — p.274
The most that we can do is to elaborate a technique for predicting the course of our sensory experience, and to adhere to it so long as it is found to be reliable. And this is all that is essentially involved in our belief in the reality of the physical world. — Ayer, P.274
But we can probably agree that there is a feeling that simply to analyse a disposition (potential, capacity, ability, skill, tendency, liability, habit, custom) as a counter-factual that x would happen if... is not enough. But I notice that you never specify what would count as the bottom of it. But we do look for, and often find, a basis for the disposition. Petrol is flammable because its' molecular structure is such that it easily reacts with the oxygen in the air and so forth. Most ice floats because its molecular structure makes it less dense and therefore lighter, than water. But these are empirical discoveries. So the most that we can say is that a disposition includes the idea that there is a causal basis for the counter-factual, but no more than that. In the end, it's just an application of the principle of sufficient reason. — Ludwig V
My problem with your view is that, so far as I can see, your view of capacity and potential are wide open to the objection that Berkeley rightly levels against the scholastic idea of matter as pure potential and Locke's view that substance is something unknown - that it is empty. — Ludwig V
Thanks for this. But isn't it also true that the Theory of Forms presents an idea that seems to be a generalization of mathematics and provide a basis for his view that the things of this world are but shadows of reality? I would have thought that Plato was quite able to hold a view and recognize difficulties with it at the same time. — Ludwig V
Showing that Ayer's metaphysics is misconceived is itself a deeply metaphysical activity. — Banno
Has anybody here actually read any Ayers? — frank
What is the point trying to create a well with just Austin's linguistic analysis on Ayer?...
<snip>
...Wouldn't the water in the well go stale soon with the prejudice and narrow mindedness rejecting all the relating issues, analysis and criticisms? — Corvus
There is no logical ground for me to believe the world exists during my sleep, because I no longer perceive the world until waking up to consciousness. Therefore perception is prior to language. — Corvus
Do we always change the world? With language?
Can you change the tree on the road with your words? — Corvus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.