But, I suppose there are hinge propositions or a priori truth that we must deal with first, and guarantee the intersubjectivity of meaning. — Posty McPostface
Most of my wants are independent of what my needs are. — Posty McPostface
You're never going to get everything you want need, but your wants and needs are not independent of each other. They can't be. Rather, it would be that some wants you just don't value very highly, or maybe some you know are unrealistic/not practical, if not unattainable because they're pure fantasy, or maybe some you're relatively too lazy to pursue (that's the case for me, for example). But all of those wants would imply needs. They can't be independent of needs. For any want, there are going to be things that have to be the case (even if just hypothetically--for example, for fantasy wants) to make the want be the case. — Terrapin Station
Well, I'm lost on what we disagree on here. We seem to be saying the same thing to some degree. — Posty McPostface
But there is no private language. — macrosoft
People unnecessarily make trouble for themselves. — Michael Ossipoff
What do you mean by that Michael? — Posty McPostface
On my view there is ONLY private language.
(I'm not a Wittgenstein fan. At all.) — Terrapin Station
I'd say it's a terminological dispute, because he we are talking, pretty much intelligible to one another. — macrosoft
Meaning occurs only in individual's heads. It can't be shared in any manner. It's something inherently mental.
Communication does not at all require literally sharing meanings. That's not how it works. — Terrapin Station
Meaning occurs only in individual's heads. It can't be shared in any manner. It's something inherently mental. — Terrapin Station
Communication does not at all require literally sharing meanings. That's not how it works. — Terrapin Station
Yes, but succinctly what's your point here? — Posty McPostface
I mean to highlight that we both share needs and not wants. We can agree that I'm thirsty if I'm dying out of dehydration. Not so much about wants. — Posty McPostface
The first brief answer that occurs to me is to quote Kentucky Buddhist Ken Keyes...his statement that we have likes, which needn't be called "wants" or "needs".
That's the short version, and you asked for a very brief concise statement. — Michael Ossipoff
Oh, I agree with that, roughly or sufficiently. I think it's pretty much always possible to qualify, qualify, qualify --but not always appropriate, else we'd never finish one thing and start another. — macrosoft
Hmm, one cannot be certain of wants; but, needs are apparent. What does that mean to you? — Posty McPostface
My understanding of humans includes that they will die without water and feel pretty bad on the way to that thirsty grave. It also includes the idea that humans can individually become fixated on objects or ideas that leave others cold. One man will die for what another considers a joke or a bore. — macrosoft
For me, though, 'mental' doesn't have some sharp meaning. Sure, we have a rough categorization, but I don't think it's sharp enough for what philosophy often wants to do with it. Now you can understand the mental so that meaning is trapped in heads, but to some degree that seems like a grammar preference. Because people commonly talk of sharing ideas, without all the metaphysical baggage of intending something exact, as if they are sharing some identical entity. — macrosoft
I believe that if I understand the terms in exactly the way you'd prefer that I'd also agree with your point. — macrosoft
Some people think that meaning is llterally "embedded" in objective stuff. For one, I'd guess that you're familiar with Putnam's work on meaning, no? — Terrapin Station
The world is the totality of facts not things. — Posty McPostface
That's one of the small number of things Wittgenstein said that I agree with. ;-)' — Terrapin Station
And how does this relate to semantic holism that is an attitude? — Posty McPostface
we have shared needs, maybe not wants. — Posty McPostface
but ultimately it comes down to likes. — Michael Ossipoff
Some people think that meaning is llterally "embedded" in objective stuff. For one, I'd guess that you're familiar with Putnam's work on meaning, no? — Terrapin Station
At any rate, when people "share ideas," they're of course not doing that literally. — Terrapin Station
Not to be difficult, but why not? — macrosoft
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.