But, according to the totality of things being facts, then all we have are symbols, models, and theories which we can devise about the world. — Posty McPostface
I agree with most of what you have said. I don't think fact making is really a big issue then. Or how do facts obtain in reality? — Posty McPostface
Interesting. What do you have to say about Wittgenstein's flawed approach in the Tractatus? — Posty McPostface
The Tractatus was a good work. — Posty McPostface
What are your thoughts about solipsism? — Posty McPostface
By the fact that understanding and communication do not at all work via literally sharing meanings. — Terrapin Station
Then how do they work? — Posty McPostface
IMO, it's very tempting to understand an 'ordinary language' position in terms of an ought. And in some cases an ought may come along for the ride. But for me any kind of ought is secondary. I'm trying to describe what is, as I experience it. The 'way most people talk about something' is the metalanguage withing which we construct our ideal object languages (AKA says what counts as real). For the most part, these object languages are the concern of a few experts, academics or in-their-free-time, who largely see themselves as talking about what is really real and yet don't change their actions in the world significantly with the rise or the fall of a thesis. Do I see the tree? Or do I see my seeing of the tree? Either way I swerve my car to miss it, or I swerve my seeing of the car to miss the seeing of the tree. (My tiny ought sneaks in here as a preference for the simpler expression, but I understand why others emphasize mediation at the expense of style.)
Don't get me wrong. I think meanings are important, even if they don't change our actions. Maybe they make us happier to do the things we were going to do anyway. The 'value' of life is maybe mostly in the so-called subjective realm. A person might be happy in a clam living in a single-wide trailer, smoking weed, and misreading Hegel on the typewriter. (That's not me, but I can think of far worse fates.) — macrosoft
But why add this 'literally'? — macrosoft
Doesn't this assume that uses of 'sharing meanings' are employing some kind of fancy metaphysical machinery that you object to? — macrosoft
But I don't think they are — macrosoft
We have a kind of pre-theoretical familiarity and skill with language. That is what I'm aiming at, not an ought but the natural consequences of the perception of an is. To grasp language in a new way is to rethink what you have been asking it to do. An architect draws up plans for a house made of bricks, say, and then discoverers that the only material available is flesh, living flesh. — macrosoft
So you and I cannot possibly mean the same thing when we each say "Paris is the capital of France"? — Banno
In some cases they are. I've been doing this a long time, and I've had various discussions over the years with philosophers who believe that we literally share meanings in communication. — Terrapin Station
You seem to hold a view that we all really believe the same things. That's not at all the case. — Terrapin Station
No idea what that has to do with the rest of the post. I'm not quite sure what you're saying there, either. — Terrapin Station
Understanding obtains when one assigns meanings to objects, actions or events in a way that is coherent and consistent — Terrapin Station
macrosoft, what are your further thoughts about atomic meaning? I believe they are important to discourse, and the trifle differences become apparent with their examination. Are you a Pragmatist by any chance? — Posty McPostface
Interesting. I think you are right to treat the atomic propositions with contempt. There's something to be said about arguing over trifle differences. I take the Wittgensteinian approach and push for less ambiguity and vagueness. What are your thoughts on this feature of the language that is 'ambiguity' and 'vagueness'? — Posty McPostface
Not literally the same, no. — Terrapin Station
Meaning occurs only in individual's heads. It can't be shared in any manner. It's something inherently mental. — Terrapin Station
What exactly is the word 'literally' doing here? Are you opposing it to 'metaphorical'? — Banno
If so, what could it mean to say we cannot both literally mean Paris by the word "Paris", but might metaphorically both mean Paris? — Banno
What are those? — Posty McPostface
If people were to suddenly disappear there would be no cities, towns, counties, provinces, states, countries, etc. Those things are just abstractions/ways that we think. Things like the moon are a different issues, though) — Terrapin Station
I don't understand your answer at all. You brought up that how most people use language doesn't cohere with my stated view.
I'm wondering why it matters, in your view, that how most people use language doesn't cohere with my stated view.
It implies that you think that our views should cohere with how most people use language. Why?
I was trying to avoid a bunch of posts a la "your response makes no sense to me," because there are at least a handful of posters here who post a lot where maybe 80-90% of the time, I'd have to answer with "your response makes no sense to me." But maybe it's better if I announce that every time rather than trying to "politely" plow ahead anyway, because that doesn't seem to go anywhere. — Terrapin Station
What camp do you fall in? Sorry for pigeonholing here — Posty McPostface
I try to be an original philosopher, synthesizing and paraphrasing everything that seems great. On an 'existential' level, I have no choice. I react to being thrown into this particular life. On a creative level, I just really like pulling phrases out of my soul, especially when I can sketch the forest. There's just some kind of reliable pleasure in grasping the essence of situations conceptually/metaphorically. — 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.