So, have you developed a meta-philosophy due to semantic-holism? — Posty McPostface
As the foregoing sketch begins to suggest, three very general metaphilosophical questions are (1) What is philosophy? (2) What is, or what should be, the point of philosophy? (3) How should one do philosophy? — IEP
I'm thinking more along the lines of a behavioral solipsist that inferrs wrongly that intent is wholly shown through behavior. Wittgenstein talks about this a lot in the Investigations. — Posty McPostface
Is your ability to use English there as a whole in your RAM? — macrosoft
Can you survey all of this linguistic know-how instantaneously in consciousness?
I presume you roughly understood that last sentence.
then meaning cannot be shared. Value cannot be 'somewhat' objective. — macrosoft
What is the subject? How does it exist? And what do we mean by this or that explication of the subject, or of truth? — macrosoft
What I learned from my previous reading group was that participants will get bogged down with terminology and understanding is hard achieved with two or more people talking past one another. — Posty McPostface
Along with the natural disgust humans have for each other. — Valentinus
Insofar as I can use it, yes. — Terrapin Station
It wouldn't be instantaneous. You don't use it all at once. You have something in mind as you use it, though. — Terrapin Station
Sure, because I can assign meanings to all of the terms in a manner that's coherent, consistent from my perspective. — Terrapin Station
And indeed I agree with both of those ideas. Meaning can not be shared and value is not at all objective. — Terrapin Station
"Subject" in the sense of "subjective"? It's mind. Mind exists as a subset of brain function. The definition/basic workings of meaning I gave to you earlier (a few days ago)--it's the act of (an individual) making mental associations. Truth I gave you my definition/basic account of a while ago, too . . .. it just seems to me kinda like quickly jumping around from topic to topic, though. — Terrapin Station
So, how is intent discerned apart from behavior? Is there any way to prove this as true? — Posty McPostface
We engage or approach the work in an organized fashion in addressing arguments raised by Wittgenstein. By which I mean we talk for example about the private language argument or language as a form of life or the beetle in a box or family resemblances.
Of course we would address each argument raised by Wittgenstein in some logical and coherent manner; but, I honestly doubt we could make it past a couple of pages reading each paragraph in logical order. — Posty McPostface
Basically what I'm hoping to do in talking about arguments is encourage discussion and dialogue. Not sure if it's the best way to do so or flawed. — Posty McPostface
And all of that stuff can be very dynamic, quickly changing, it can be pretty fuzzy, various things both in succession and simultaneous, with various acts of association while all of that stuff is present mentally, ¤ and § and Ç and so on. — Terrapin Station
(a) meaning is inherently mental and can't be "made into something else"--so I can't literally type a meaning — Terrapin Station
The associations we make that are meanings aren't necessarily simple or just one thing, especially for things that we're very familiar with. — Terrapin Station
And then they'll have something in mind for a phrase like "is on the," which wouldn't be unusual to treat as "one thing," so that you're making a mental association, ¶, with the whole phrase, and you're associating it with something like your concept of the relation, or perhaps you're picturing the relation or whatever. — Terrapin Station
* Again, insofar as an individual does NOT assign meaning to a word, a phrase, or even the entire sentence, it does not have a meaning. — Terrapin Station
Or in other words, no one can be wrong about any meaning, any association they make. They can be more or less conventional, but it's not wrong to be unconventional. — Terrapin Station
Meaning is still the stuff going on in individuals' heads. It's just that those individuals are obviously not in vacuums with respect to each other. They interact and influence each other and so on. — Terrapin Station
I have my copy of the Investigations ready.
Who wants to lead this reading group? — Posty McPostface
We could do without a leader; but, someone needs to organize how we proceed, I think. — Posty McPostface
Is there anything you believe would be difficult to account for under my view? — Terrapin Station
But, we do need some narrative, don't we? — Posty McPostface
You define meaning in terms of undefined words. — macrosoft
I think it would be good to address how the language is learned as a whole — 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.