Will you say there are no leaves because they attached to trees? Do they only come into existence when they fall? — Janus
We can either say to Jimmie that it is certain that the sun will go down; or we can change the conversation from when he should be home to one of astronomy or induction. The spade is turned when we hit the bedrock that the sun goes down each day. — Banno
which bedrock will turn the spade depends on where you dig; which propositions are to go unchallenged depends on the language game, depends on the conversation, depends on situation, depends on the practicalities.
Are we so far apart in our ideas? — Banno
Did Sam say that? I'm pretty sure I did not....under any circumstances. — Metaphysician Undercover
Did Sam say that? I'm pretty sure I did not.
I think Sam and I said that there are propositions that are taken as certain within a given language game. — Banno
Why must Jack be required to be able to think about his own belief in order for him to be able to know that his bowl is empty? — creativesoul
The argument has been that it is unreasonable to doubt specific fundamental propositions. This implies that these propositions cannot be reasonably doubted under any circumstances. That is what is supposed to form the foundation of justification. It prevents the infinite regress of asking for justification of a proposition, then asking for justification of the justification, etc.. — Metaphysician Undercover
...the sun does not go down each day. — Metaphysician Undercover
S knows that P if, and only iff, iS believes P, iiS is justified in believing P, and iiiP is true. — creativesoul
Witt held that belief has propositional content. Thus, he insisted that a belief must be stateable. — creativesoul
The argument has been that it is unreasonable to doubt specific fundamental propositions. This implies that these propositions cannot be reasonably doubted under any circumstances. That is what is supposed to form the foundation of justification. It prevents the infinite regress of asking for justification of a proposition, then asking for justification of the justification, etc.. — Metaphysician Undercover
SO in all that time we were talking about how bishops can only move diagonally, you missed the bit that said within the game of chess. No wonder you were confused, thinking Sam and I believed that a bishop stuck to the diagonals under any circumstances. — Banno
My only excuse is that it had until now not occurred to me that someone might miss the part about rules being part of a game-like activity. — Banno
Frame of reference?
In some, it most certainly does. — creativesoul
want to say that a belief is justified or not prior to the believer offering the account. The justification is the offering. — creativesoul
Is their belief that touching the fire caused the pain unjustified until they tell someone? Of course not. It is knowledge. It is true. It is well-grounded. It needs no account be given to another. Justification is for proving to another that one's belief is well-grounded and true. The act doesn't ground the belief. — creativesoul
I'm saying that leaves have no existence independent from the tree. The fact that they fall to the ground does not negate their dependency on the tree for their existence. So any proper explanation of their existence would attribute their existence to the existence of the tree. — Metaphysician Undercover
So I think that Wittgenstein has taken two world views which are completely incompatible and attempted to establish compatibility between them with the proposal of hinge-props. In my opinion it fails because the two world views are incompatible, and so the attempt is misguided. — Metaphysician Undercover
What kind of existence do the rules have? If they always existed, then they are eternal platonic Forms. If they are not eternal Forms, then we have to allow for them to come into existence. If they come into existence, then they are most likely created by the human beings playing the game. But then the game analogy gets lost because the players really do not have to follow the rules, they use their free will to decide, and create the rules as they go. — Metaphysician Undercover
Sure, and the existence of the tree is dependent on the seed, the sunlight, the rain and the nutrients within the ground in which it is anchored and growing and so on. I don't see the relevance to the point, though, which was concerned with the discernibility of entities. — Janus
You know MU, I read your responses not only in this thread, but your responses to Micheal in another thread, and the only one misguided is you. What you write isn't even coherent at times. You talk about Wittgenstein, but you don't even understand much of what he is saying. So don't give me this crap about being misguided, or that Wittgenstein's proposals fail, because it's clear that you're the one who doesn't understand what you're criticizing. Reading your posts reminds me of reading Ron L. Hubbard, most of it is gibberish. — Sam26
Consider board games that usually come with a written set of rules. These games are man-made, but this doesn't mean that anyone can use their "free will to decide" what the rules of this game are. You have to follow the rules to play the game, otherwise you aren't playing that game. — Luke
If two (or more) players agree to play by a different set of rules then they are no longer playing the same game. In order to play the game named on the box, you can't make up the rules as you go. Even if two or more players agree to play a different game with a different set of rules, one person can't simply decide that those rules don't apply to her (and still be playing the same game). — Luke
The point I was trying to make is that in the case of language and knowledge, unlike games of chess and such, we actually do make up the rules as we go. This is very evident from history. So that is where the "game" analogy falls short. When we reach the limits of an analogy we ought to drop it and move on, rather than trying to clutch for straws and apply the analogy where it is not suited. — Metaphysician Undercover
Consider board games that usually come with a written set of rules. These games are man-made, but this doesn't mean that anyone can use their "free will to decide" what the rules of this game are. You have to follow the rules to play the game, otherwise you aren't playing that game. — Luke
in the case of language and knowledge, unlike games of chess and such, we actually do make up the rules as we go. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.