Then how did some many Marxist philosophers or logical positivists got it wrong? It seems we're stuck between Plato and Aristotle as of late. — Posty McPostface

I'm not sure what you mean by "got it wrong"? It could be said that both Marxists and logical positivists have tried to nail it down once and for all, couldn't it. On the other hand they have also added some illuminating insights into our practices.

In other words there are both liberating and neurotic aspects to both marxism and logical positivism. It is not a zero/sum game, I would say.

In other words there are both liberating and neurotic aspects to both marxism and logical positivism. It is not a zero/sum game, I would say. — Janus

I would not assert otherwise. Therefore a Rogerian agreement should be achieved if we're both sincere.

What is the 'otherwise" that you are asserting? I would need to know that as well as what a 'Rogerian agreement" is before I could sincerely assent.

What is the 'otherwise" that you are asserting? I would need to know that as well as what a 'Rogerian agreement" is before I could sincerely assent. — Janus

Any contrary proposition you could have to my propositional attitudes.

This is not helpful because I still don't know what your "propositional attitudes" to what I had said are. It's obvious that as a definition your "otherwise" would consist in contrary propositions, but I would have to know just what those contrary propositions are, as well as what "Rogerian agreement' is in order to determine whether I could assent. In other words I cannot assent unless i know what i am assenting to.

In other words I cannot assent unless i know what i am assenting to. — Janus

Then, we've arrived at a systematically inchoate question if we can't even be answering it without question begging.

I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about; so we'd best leave it then if you unwilling to explain yourself.

It's obvious that as a definition your "otherwise" would consist in contrary propositions, but I would have to know just what those contrary propositions are, as well as what "Rogerian agreement' is in order to determine whether I could assent. In other words I cannot assent unless i know what i am assenting to. — Janus

Is this not question-begging or is it?

I can't see how it is question-begging. Perhaps you could explain how it is that you see it as such.

I can't see how it is question-begging. Perhaps you could explain how it is that you see it as such. — Janus

I guess you can phrase it as trust. If you can't have any trust in my being sincere about some Rogerian agreement, then the issue is a non-starter. Hence, without trust, you can't have any agreements made.

Even if I have no doubt about your sincerity that will still not enable me to agree with what you have said, if I don't know what it means.

Even if I have no doubt about your sincerity that will still not enable me to agree with what you have said, if I don't know what it means. — Janus

It simply means that reality is shared and we can agree that the cat is on the mat if we're willing to suspend disbelief in an external world or solipsistic universe.

OK, that sound fine. I don't think the debate around solipsism vs external world is interesting, or even really coherent, anyway.

Also, I assume you mean "suspend disbelief or belief".

OK, that sound fine. I don't think the debate around solipsism vs external world is interesting, or even really coherent, anyway. — Janus

But, it is conceivable to a solipsist that never doubts that could exist in principle. One has to always acknowledge that.

You could say that doubt may also be inconceivable to the external world realist, but I doubt that: I would say she just hasn't acquired the intellectual tools to doubt, or has an emotional aversion to it which means doubt is not possible to her, given her current intellectual resources. With greater intellectual breadth and depth much more becomes conceivable; which is not to say that everything becomes equally plausible.

With greater intellectual breadth and depth much more becomes conceivable; which is not to say that everything becomes equally plausible. — Janus

True; but, trust is the heart of the issue no?

Trust in the other's sincerity, you mean? If so, yes, that is a matter of trust.

Trust in the other's sincerity, you mean? If so, yes, that is a matter of trust. — Janus

Sincerety is King then!

So it would seem; without it the situation would appear to be utterly hopeless.