In this case, the context is mathematics, and the axioms associated with number theory. :roll:
15m — Pattern-chaser

"2" referred to the US. "1" referred to Australia. The greatness spoken of was moral fortitude.

Why did you think the context was math? Stick with me. I'll get you straightened out. :wink: — frank

C'mon! :smile: You offered a statement without context, and challenged me to guess what it was. Now you come out with some cobbled-together story about how it concerned something quite different, demonstrating that context is very much present in your example, and that its importance to the meaning of the statement offered is central. Context applies to almost everything, as I said, and as you seemed to be denying.... :chin: I don't think I will be taking up your offer - to straighten me out :wink: - any time soon. :smile:

every ideology that's ever been invented seems to inevitably subdivide in to warring internal factions. The universality of this phenomena is a very useful clue trying to tell us that the peace and unity we're looking for can not be found in philosophies, in the content of thought. — Jake

Quite possibly. :up: But there are other explanations that also seem (to me) to recommend themselves. For example, perhaps the problem lies with humans, not directly with thought, or its content? I'm sure there are quite a few other possibilities too.... :chin:

.

Language, thought, and communication, are just like morality, success requires effort. To think that being moral comes naturally to a human being is to think a false thought. And the same is true of communication, to think that communication comes naturally to a human being is to think a false thought. This is because communication, like morality, requires acting correctly and that requires effort.

The question is where do we put an end to this line of thought? Acting correctly, using language correctly, thinking correctly, don't come naturally they require effort. But if thought can go both ways, toward the correct, or toward the incorrect, then thought itself must come naturally, and it is only correct thought which is what requires effort. That is, unless thinking itself is a good, correct act, which requires effort to avoid non-thinking, then we must look even deeper to put an end to this line of thought.

Let's just say - because I have no desire to talk about brains in vats - that the idea for this thread did not develop in a vaccum. :eyes: — StreetlightX

No, I didn't want to talk about brains in vats either. I asked if we could look more generally, at speculations that were possible, but came without evidence. Sadly, most other contributors did not wish to direct their attention there. I hope this thread is progressing more to your liking? :wink: :up:

Unlike errors, which can always be corrected for, and are thus ‘extrinsic’ to thought, the trivial and the arbitrary are instead ‘internal’ to thought itself; Thought, to the degree that it can think anything it wants without motivation, is always in danger of triviality, which cannot simply be corrected for by providing more facts and better resources. It is this internal and intrinsic danger of thought that Deleuze dubbed ‘stupidity’ — StreetlightX

I went back to the OP, to read carefully what this topic is about. I hope I've chosen appropriate words?

My response to this is simple: how do we recognise "the trivial and the arbitrary", and distinguish it from that which is worth thinking about*?

* - In whose opinion...? :chin:

If we are to discover new knowledge, it will necessarily not be a part of our current knowledge, so it will seem unorthodox; it will not agree with currently-held knowledge. How do we continue to make new discoveries, and also avoid "the trivial and the arbitrary"? :chin:

Metaphysics is awesome — StreetlightX


Real gold. ;-) — Wayfarer

:vomit: — StreetlightX

(It's catching!) — Janus

Jokes about seeing someone else vomit making oneself vomit in turn aside, I am still not really seeing how the notion of "transcendental stupidity", if not taken to be merely attacking the stupidity of premises involving the idea of substantive transcendence, consists in anything more than pointing out the plainly obvious fact that there are more or less comprehensive and subtle, that is more or less intelligent, accounts of pretty much anything we care to think of.

And the idea that stupid people will be content with the least comprehensive and subtle accounts accords quite well with @Wayfarer's point about 'fool's gold vs real gold', so in light of that the initial act of vomiting does seem somewhat inexplicable. :confused:

Maybe I can put the point phenomenologically: the objection I find myself reaching for most often on a forum like this is not 'you're wrong' but 'that's irrelavent, or 'that has nothing to do with whatever point I'm trying to make'. Even as a sheer observer of other conversations which I don't participate in at all, I'm often surprised (and slightly dismayed) that people - even and perhaps especially intelligent people - rarely reach for the vocabulary of 'thats not relevant', even when the point in question, whatever it might be, quite clearly isn't. It's like the only kind of 'mistakes' we are used to error, and we don't even have the vocabulary to speak of mistakes which are of the order of significance. I'd go so far as to say that the majority so-called 'disagreements' are over questions of relavence and not facts, even if they are often not recognized as such.

The point, among other things, is a generalization of this observation. To speak of transcendental stupidity in this context is simply when the problem that is being meant to be addressed is simply not addressed at all, or worse (and perhaps even more common), when it is entirely unclear what the stakes of a problem are to begin with (there's an anecdote that William James relates in his Pragmatism where he tells of two people arguing whether a man following a squirrel around a tree is going around the squirrel, or if the squirrel is going around the man; he dissolves the argument by showing that, obviously, there is nothing at stake in this question: that it is entirely irrelavant what the answer might be. This is another case of transcendental stupidity).

So - the question of 'substantive transcendence' is *ahem* irrelavant to any of this, and I do wish people would stop talking about it in this thread (which doesn't mean I can't put up vomit emojis when it's mentioned!).

Yes, I actually very much agree with everything you say here!

So - the question of 'substantive transcendence' is *ahem* irrelavant to any of this, and I do wish people would stop talking about it in this thread (which doesn't mean I can't put up vomit emojis when it's mentioned!). — StreetlightX

OK, I think I get your drift now...but, remember, just like witnessed real vomiting can lead to subsequent real vomiting by the witnesses, so it also may be with vomit emojis...not to mention transcendental regurgitations...or vomits of transcendent substances...