I think Searle is just pointing at meaning. Such meaning generates problems because the fantasy is that one can create a explicit system that does not break down. We are trying to capture our capturing itself. We are tying to trap a mist in a spiderweb. This mist is trying to trap itself in a spiderweb . . . — macrosoft
I’ve read Philosophical Investigations and own a copy. Not forking out for a guidebook though. I’ll try and chip in when I can.
When you starting this? — I like sushi
I don't want to keep saying this, and I've mostly tried not to, because I hate harping on the same thing all the time, but pretty much anything you write, at least when it's more than 30-40 words or whatever, is something where the more I read it, the more I really haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about or "trying to say." I don't expect you to change your style because of this, but if the goal is to convey any ideas, to get folks to think in different ways, etc., it might be worth noting that at least for some of us, your approach isn't at all working. — Terrapin Station
Well, I understand him. I feel we're being a tad bit judgemental here. Sure, macrosoft can maybe engage in more atomistic approaches to language; but, it's an online forum, so no need to get pissy. — Posty McPostface
I want to inform that I won't be able to handle the managerial aspect of the reading group. My role here is only that of an orchestrator for it.
Anyone up for the job? — Posty McPostface
I don't want to keep saying this, and I've mostly tried not to, because I hate harping on the same thing all the time, but pretty much anything you write, at least when it's more than 30-40 words or whatever, is something where the more I read it, the more I really haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about or "trying to say." I don't expect you to change your style because of this, but if the goal is to convey any ideas, to get folks to think in different ways, etc., it might be worth noting that at least for some of us, your approach isn't at all working. — Terrapin Station
Well, I understand him. I feel we're being a tad bit judgemental here. Sure, macrosoft can maybe engage in more atomistic approaches to language; but, it's an online forum, so no need to get pissy. — Posty McPostface
We're all blind, and Wittgenstein ensures that we proceed in this way, providing us with nothing in particular which we might see. So I'll follow, but I won't even pretend to lead because that would be the position of a fool. — Metaphysician Undercover
the more I read it, the more I really haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about or "trying to say." — Terrapin Station
Such meaning generates problems because the fantasy is that one can create a explicit system that does not break down. We are trying to capture our capturing itself. We are tying to trap a mist in a spiderweb. This mist is trying to trap itself in a spiderweb. This spiderweb is a small set of words ripped out of their living context and somewhat naively interpreted as little containers of exact meaning with which we can do 'math.' — macrosoft
I'm just difficult. Even my favorite philosophers I don't agree with even 50% of the time. — Terrapin Station
Re continentalism, I really, really hate continental philosophers' style(s) of writing/approach to expressing their views--starting with Kant, at least. I don't always disagree with their views, but I just can't stand the way they write. — Terrapin Station
I like the analytic style a lot. So even when I don't agree with analytic philosophers (which is quite often if even my favorites have averages that look like MLB batting averages), I enjoy reading them much more than continental authors. — Terrapin Station
Meanings exist systematically. The semantic unit is not the individual word but rather the entire language which is mostly not present for consciousness as we use it. — macrosoft
The 'spiderwebs' are theories of the subject and the object, for instance. — macrosoft
They are theories about what it is for something to be true or for something to exist. — macrosoft
What do you mean by that? — Posty McPostface
But late Wittgenstein is very clear, though he is saying something strange. — macrosoft
Wittgenstein isn't exactly a continentalist, though. I agree that he's a weird fit for the analytic "school," but he makes much more sense to lump in with the analytics than the continentalists, especially given his association with the Vienna Circle, which is hardcore analytic philosophy. — Terrapin Station
So this, for example, I think is obviously incorrect, especially the "not present for consciousness as we use it" part. — Terrapin Station
if you're using that term as simply a "less boring/more 'poetic'" way to refer to something like a simple distinction of subjective/objective. — Terrapin Station
And then this seems to be another non-sequiturish jump to me, because truth theories and basic ontology are two different things that don't have a necessary connection to a subjective/objective distinction, which didn't have any clear connection to a general philosophy of language focusing on semiotics and semantics.
. . . and so on. — Terrapin Station
Wittgenstein isn't exactly a continentalist, though. I agree that he's a weird fit for the analytic "school," but he makes much more sense to lump in with the analytics than the continentalists, especially given his association with the Vienna Circle, which is hardcore analytic philosophy. — Terrapin Station
The term “meaning holism” is generally applied to views that treat the meanings of all of the words in a language as interdependent. Holism draws much of its appeal from the way in which the usage of all our words seems interconnected, and runs into many problems because the resultant view can seem to conflict with (among other things) the intuition that meanings are by and large shared and stable. — SEP
Have you looked into phenomenology? — macrosoft
Yes, I have. I like Husserl a lot. He got me into phenomenology. There's so much ambiguity that I see, everywhere around me, in regards to intentionality and affect. I don't know if you care to talk about this. — Posty McPostface
What about intent? How do you address that finiky problem? — Posty McPostface
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.