I suppose Harry might have some variation of Kripke's causal chains of reference in mind; but it would be a long and odd stretch to say that causal chains of reference referred to mental images. — Banno
Did I not already explain that your mental image is an effect (a representation) of the the real thing? Mental images are real, just as a mirror image is real and part of the world. This is why we can use words to refer to either, and it is typically understood which one is being referred to within the context of the conversation. It's just that your mental image is the only access you have to the real world, so what else could you refer to other than your mental representations of the world? It allows for us to be wrong or inaccurate, which happens often, when describing things outside of our minds. How do you explain the possibility of being inaccurate with your descriptions if you are always referring to something in the world?What shall "actual Harry Hindu" mean? The actual mental image?
If someone shows a picture and says "This is <insert some name here>" it is clear that he means the "actual" person.
If someone says "Harry is floating in front of his computer while writing his posts" it is again clear that he is joking - just because of that. — Heiko
The one that is absent of your biased and skewed mental representations of me.Harry can't see it. Odd. Let's be clear: Harry Hindu is not my mental image of Harry Hindu. Yet if Harry's theory of meaning were right, he would be.
your mental image of me and the actual me are not the same thing, — Harry Hindu
Indeed. Which of them is Harry Hindu? — Banno
Nonsense.Apart from solipsism I'm not aware of any philosophy where a statement about the world would not refer to something outside the mind. — Heiko
To both of course as the Kantian thing encompasses both: The real thing and it's mental image.It's just that your mental image is the only access you have to the real world, so what else could you refer to other than your mental representations of the world? — Harry Hindu
It's just that your mental image is the only access you have to the real world, so what else could you refer to other than your mental representations of the world? — Harry Hindu
Right, so your claims are always accurate, and you know that they are always accurate.To both of course as the Kantian thing encompasses both: The real thing and it's mental image.
This is already clear if I was to ask whereof the mental image is. This is an intrinsic reference.
If I make a statement about Harry I make a claim about you, not any mental image. I would need to explicitely distinguish that I only meant my imagination if I did not make such a claim. — Heiko
So Banno is always right. All of his claims are objective in the sense that they always refer to actual states of affairs outside his own head. Banno is omniscient and we never knew.Here we have the reason for the debunked theory of meaning Harry exposes: Stove's worst argument. Harry never eats eggs, only images-of-eggs. — Banno
Here you are merely using a language shortcut to refer to the person. You are actually saying, "This is a picture of <insert some name here>." Obviously, you don't mean that the person is actually a picture and not a person. This extra information is garnered from the context.If someone shows a picture and says "This is <insert some name here>" it is clear that he means the "actual" person. — Heiko
And here you have your words referring to your intent to be funny - not to any actual state-of-affairs that exists outside of your mind, just as a lie refers to my intent to mislead - to plant false ideas in your head so that you will act accordingly.If someone says "Harry is floating in front of his computer while writing his posts" it is again clear that he is joking - just because of that. — Heiko
I do not see how the dialectic of form and content will save you here. The very existence of the shortcut should tell you something. You know the Kantian thing is in and of itself. When trying to communicate with others we strive to talk about the same piece of reality. We have to do so, because we want to talk about the same thing.Here you are merely using a language shortcut to refer to the person. You are actually saying, "This is a picture of <insert some name here>." — Harry Hindu
Claiming that others have an argument is not a substitute to come up with an argument of your own. Maybe they do have compelling arguments, but you would not know it if you cannot say what it is. If you and I are going to have a long term discussion, I expect you to philosophize, and not merely point to other philosophers. — Samuel Lacrampe
Exactly. It tells me that you mean something other than what you literally said.I do not see how the dialectic of form and content will save you here. The very existence of the shortcut should tell you something. — Heiko
Whatever, bro. You think that you can talk about things without having any mental representations of those things - as if your mental representations of those things don't (causally) influence your word use about those things. That is absurd.You know the Kantian thing is in and of itself. When trying to communicate with others we strive to talk about the same piece of reality. We have to do so, because we want to talk about the same thing.
You will not get out of the affair when we talk about "Harry". Nor will the person shown on the picture. — Heiko
Of what? Words aren't things either. So "mental representation" does not mean all that much - if anything when I start thinking about it. It is m, e, n, ...You think that you can talk about things without having any mental representations of those things — Harry Hindu
Yeah, well, I suppose in a sense this thread seeks a definition of "definition".
In that context, my poiint is that a set of synonyms does not set out what we might call the meaning of some term. — Banno
As for the question you ask, I was confused there too for a while, but I think I've got it now. Yes, I prefer a human-centric philosophy, and perspective on life, the universe and everything. But I want an honest view, so I would avoid projecting the meaning I see onto the world. Meaning is in the eye of the beholder, it is not part of the thing we assign or ascribe it to. That kind of projection seems to be very easy for us to slip into, as we do it a lot. I try to avoid it whenever I can, or comment if it seems someone else is doing so.
Does that answer your question? :chin: — Pattern-chaser
So your argument is an appeal to authority. — Samuel Lacrampe
The fact is a lot of philosophers have used the method in their philosophy: Aristotle, Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, Peter Kreeft. — Samuel Lacrampe
Do you disagree that concepts have essential properties? — Samuel Lacrampe
Do you disagree that the essential properties of the concept 'triangle' are 'flat surface' + '3 straight sides'? Do you disagree we know this because we cannot falsify the hypothesis by coming up with an example of the concept which does not contain these properties? — Samuel Lacrampe
Easy. Your intelligent philosophers can be wrong. Proof: Either the Socratic Method to find essences works or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then those intelligent philosophers I named were wrong in their reasoning, thus showing that even intelligent philosophers can be wrong. If it does, then those intelligent philosophers you named were wrong, thus showing the same thing. Either way, some intelligent philosophers must be wrong.Yes, but they have clearly achieved absolutely nothing by it, otherwise there would not continue to be a lot of equally intelligent philosophers who disagree with them. I've yet to hear your account of that fact. — Pseudonym
I can prove the essential properties exist without spending the time to find them. We can use the concept 'meaning' in a coherent sentence; and we can use the concept 'duck' in a coherent sentence. And those two concepts are not interchangeable in a sentence without changing the message. Thus whatever the concept 'meaning' is, it does not coincide with the concept 'duck'. This is sufficient to prove that 'duck' is missing some essential properties that makes a meaning a 'meaning', and 'meaning' is missing some essential properties that makes a duck a 'duck'. And this implies that these beings have essential properties.Clearly the concept of 'meaning' does not have essential properties, if it did we could have elucidated them by now and the vast range of propositions about mean which continue to be held by perfectly intelligent people is testament to the fact that we have not. — Pseudonym
The answer to your direct question is: not a triangle; for a rounded three-sided shape when flattened no longer looks like a triangle. But this is besides the point. The point is that, right or wrong, you are attempting to falsify my hypothesis, that is to say, using the Socratic Method.What is a three-sided shape on a non-euclidean surface then? — Pseudonym
Your insistence on talking about philosophers instead of philosophizing about the topic at hand begs the question: Is the topic so hard for you that it is pointless to explore it for yourself without appealing to other's opinion? — Samuel Lacrampe
focusing only on those words is cherry picking, and does not account for the words we judge as being "easy to define" through the Socratic Method. — Samuel Lacrampe
Most words judged as hard to define have resulted in more agreements than disagreements. E.g. The definition of 'knowing' as: 'justify' + 'true' + 'belief', is mostly agreed upon; and those who dispute this definition nevertheless agree that it is close to the mark, as the exceptions found were rare. — Samuel Lacrampe
(1) As far as I know, it is the best method we have. — Samuel Lacrampe
(2) Even if we do not reach a perfect definition, the method gets us closer to it. — Samuel Lacrampe
(3) When we do not reach a perfect definition, it is still that very method that allows us to know that. — Samuel Lacrampe
But common usage IS the test used in the Socratic Method to verify or falsify a hypothesis definition. Thus we are not really in disagreement here.Most find their definition through a combination of factors, but mainly common usage. — Pseudonym
Their opinion alone is not valuable without the reason to back it up. And that reason is finding counter-examples that falsify the definition, in other words, the Socratic Method.Again, I don't agree, we can use simple empiricism to see that we don't agree, read the words of two philosophers on the subject and infer from your understanding of their different meanings that they don't agree. — Pseudonym
My point was not about the number of people who agree vs disagree. It was the fact that even those who don't agree are not in full disagreement, and simply find the accepted definition to be insufficient.Knowledge as justified true belief has been in doubt since Gettier but the point of my argument is not about consensus, it's about how we justify the process. So what if lot's of people agree, how does that make the one who doesn't more wrong, and if it doesn't automatically make him more wrong, then what method are you going to put forward to convince him otherwise. He's already heard the arguments and still does not agree, what then? — Pseudonym
↪Pattern-chaser
, hello.
Because we can prove that all meaningful words have essential properties. Then the fact that we are able to use all words in a meaningful sentence shows that we have some knowledge of their meanings. We just need to uncover the definition by separating the essential properties from the non-essential ones; which is done through the Socratic Method. — Samuel Lacrampe
But common usage IS the test used in the Socratic Method to verify or falsify a hypothesis definition. Thus we are not really in disagreement here. — Samuel Lacrampe
Their opinion alone is not valuable without the reason to back it up. And that reason is finding counter-examples that falsify the definition, in other words, the Socratic Method. — Samuel Lacrampe
This means the original definition must have been mostly right if it held up for that long. — Samuel Lacrampe
And finally, it was still the Socratic Method which allowed him to discover that some property was missing, by falsifying the definition with counter-examples. — Samuel Lacrampe
the Socratic Method is nothing but the scientific method [observation, hypothesis, testing through verification and falsification, repeat] applied to definition of terms as used in the common language. — Samuel Lacrampe
P1. The words we are struggling to define have been in use for thousands of years.
P2. The method of Socratic dialect has been around, and been used to determine the meaning of these words for thousands of years.
P3. There is little or no agreement on the meaning of these words.
P4. (By inference) A method which has been practiced for thousands of years but has failed to work probably doesn't work.
C1. The Socratic dialect method does not work for establishing the meaning of disputable terms. — Pseudonym
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.