as completely opposed to Mww's proposed definition of "principle" as an absolute truth) — Metaphysician Undercover
A principle is a synthesis of conceptions into a necessary truth. — Mww
The whole point of interaction theory is that standards don’t have any existence outside of their use, and in their use they are altered to accommodate themselves to what they are applied to.
— Joshs
I can accept this. with a slight revision, and this is what I've been arguing. We can not call this a "standard" then. That is why I rejected Antony's use of "criteria". The point though, is that we also have stated standards, and criteria, laws, which are not intended "to accommodate themselves to what they are applied to", they are intended to be steadfastly adhered to. These are exemplified in mathematics and logic. And they are what those words more properly refer to. — Metaphysician Undercover
The unique particulars of the very distinct and unique situations which we find ourselves in, makes it impossible for us to govern our lives through strict adherence to any rigid standards or criteria, because these general, universal principles cannot be applied in the majority of those mundane situations. — Metaphysician Undercover
what is involved in my recognizing what another person has said, is simply a matter of switching out my intention, and replacing it with the other's intention. My "principles" have a direct relation to my intention, and the switch allows a direct relationship with the other's intention because I have assumed the other's intention to take the place of my own. The important word is "assumed", because the other's intention doesn't actually take the place of mine, i simply allow it to seem that way. — Metaphysician Undercover
Stubborn bunch, aye. They’ve done the heavy lifting, so perhaps have earned the right.
I’m familiar with the essay. What I found quite telling about it, is located in fn2, wherein it is admitted that the explication of the stated purpose of the essay, follows conditions "as I understand them to be”. — Mww
“understanding” is precisely the quanta of the heavy lifting to which the especially post-Renaissance continentals directed themselves, and the anti-metatheoretical analyticals have back-burnered. — Mww
Question: are images part and parcel of human mentality? — Mww
Look no farther than the United States Government for real life examples of standards existing in writing but no one following them, or using them to show that no one is following them. — creativesoul
looking at use...
seeing certain words articulated in a novel or curious way
thinking anew...
intentionally suspend[ing] our judgement...
carefully considering another's viewpoint...
grasping where another is coming from...
wanting to hear from another...
entertaining - sometimes said to be "for argument's sake"...
begin[ing]... with an attitude that everyone deserves a certain modicum of respect...
hear[ing] them out as thoroughly as is needed... — creativesoul
Our original worldview is almost entirely adopted, and all the stuff you learn to talk about is already meaningful to those with whom you learn to talk about it with. In this way, the world is always already meaningful, if and only if, the world is equal to word (to what one can talk about, what has been talked about, or what can be talked about). It's not. — creativesoul
Surely everything said is meaningful at least to the creature saying it, even if it sounds like gibberish to everyone else. — creativesoul
That language is dead is to say that writing comes before the speaking (as if opposite of Derrida I believe Joshs). — Antony Nickles
Not "what do you mean by___" It's: "what do we mean when we say___?"
— Antony Nickles
Your phrases "we say", and "we mean", are incoherent, as if a phrase could be properly interpreted outside its context. — Metaphysician Undercover
But this is to just divide acts/expressions into intended ones and unintended ones, so the intended ones still fall under the picture of a ever-present cause (for those "intended"). And this is different than my proposing the question of intention only comes up sometimes, not that it applies to all acts that are (pre?) "intended".
— Antony Nickles
You are simply denying the reality of the situation. Human beings are intentional beings. — Metaphysician Undercover
They always have goals and therefore they cannot separate themselves from their goals, as if they could pass some time without having any goals. So an habitual, "unintended" human act, exists within the wider context of intention. When I walk to the store, my legs are moving in an unintended habitual way, but this is within the context of me intending to get to the store. When I talk to my brother, my lips are moving and I'm making sounds in an unintended habitual way, but this is within the wider context of intending to speak to him about some subject. — Metaphysician Undercover
If it's difficult to justify the idea that "you and I" exist as one united entity called "we", how much more difficult is it to justify your claim that "all English speakers" exist as such a united entity? — Metaphysician Undercover
"What about the circumstances led to the mistake?" The fact that the person (oneself a part of the circumstances) did not properly account for the particulars. "Why did you shoot the cow instead of the donkey?" "Someone put the cow into the donkey's stall and I didn't confirm that it was the donkey I was shooting." This is the answer to "why" in every instance of a mistake, "I did not take into account all the particulars of the circumstances". A mistake is an intentional act which was made without adequate knowledge of the particulars of the situation, therefore it does not result as intended. It is because each situation consists of particulars which are unique to that situation, as "the circumstances", and the person fails to account for the particulars, that mistakes are made. — Metaphysician Undercover
The biggest problem of idealism is to account for the fact that we, as individual minds, are separated. There is a very real medium of separation between your mind and my mind, which we call the material world, and this very real separation forces the idealist toward principles to account for this reality, to avoid solipsism. If you deny the reality of this separation between us, you force us into a reality in which there is no material world, and we are all just one solipsistic mind. — Metaphysician Undercover
Regarding ordinary language...
I'm all for striving to use as much common language as possible to explain something or other. The simpler the better assuming no loss in meaningful explanation. I'm also inclined to believe that Ockham's razor is worthy of guiding principle status, so... — creativesoul
Regarding the rules of language games...
One need not know or interpret the rules to learn them. The knowing is shown in the using. We do not call trees "cats". Etc. We learn that trees are called "trees" by drawing correlations between "tree" and trees. Learning the rules is embedded in language acquisition. We learn that "Shut the door" can have several different meanings, depending upon the speakers' tone, facial expressions, volume, etc. The different contextual elements are part of the different meanings(uses) 'tied to' the same words. The same words are part of several different uses. We learn about the differences in meaning by virtue of drawing correlations between the same words and the different contextual elements(tone, volume, facial expressions, etc.) — creativesoul
Husserl made a distinction between free and bound idealities. Mathematical logic is an example of of a free ideality. It is designed to be able to be identically repeatable outside of all contexts, it it is by itself empty of intentional meaning. — Joshs
Spoken and written language, and all other sorts of gestures and markings which intend meaning, exemplify bound idealities. Even as it is designed to be immortal, repeatable as the same apart from any actual occurrences made at some point, the SENSE of a spoken or inscribed utterance, what it means or desires to say, is always tied to the contingencies of empirical circumstance. In other words , no matter how hard we try to steadfastly adhere to a standard , there is always contextually driven slippage. — Joshs
It sounds like you are saying that we have unaltered access to a standard first, and only after do we pick and choose what parts of it to apply to a news contextual situation. I’m saying that regardless of how hard we attempt to keep our understanding of the original standard an exact duplicate of the first time we became acquainted with it , there will be continual slippage in the meaning of that standard. Such slippage will be subtle enough, at least over short periods of time , that it will go unnoticed. For all intents and purposes we can claim to be able to consult an unchanged version of the standard every time we think of it in our mind or re-read it. — Joshs
More specifically, Goldman argues that my understanding of others is rooted in my ability to project myself imaginatively into their situation. — Joshs
When we interact directly with another person, we do generally not engage in some detached observation of what the person is doing. We do in general not at first attempt to classify his or her actions under lawlike generalizations; rather we seek to make sense of them. When you see somebody use a hammer, feed a child or clean a table, you might not necessarily understand every aspect of the action, but it is immediately given as a meaningful action (in a common world). — Joshs
I hope you see that this makes your rebuttal to my point appear to be that you know what reality is, and I do not. — Antony Nickles
Can we not just say: "I'm going to the store." or: "I'm speaking to my brother about something." — Antony Nickles
And these show us something about intention--that it is a hope for the future, which, however, may go wrong (like shooting a cow instead of a donkey). — Antony Nickles
..our shared lives... — Antony Nickles
No, "language" is the more specific term, while "communicate" is more general. Using language is a form of communicating, but there are forms of communicating which do not use language. If language is a specialized human form of communication, then the child might still use more animalistic types before learning the human type. — Metaphysician Undercover
Right, it's a sort of dilemma which the philosophical misconception of language creates. The resolution to that dilemma is to recognize that the philosophical representation of language, which assumes rules as a necessary aspect of language, is wrong. Language allows for the existence of rules, which are expressed via language, and therefore cannot exist without language. — Metaphysician Undercover
These rules would be private rules, constituting a private language — Metaphysician Undercover
Why are "rules required to learn rules"? Because you say so?
— Luke
You don't seem to grasp the issue. Rules are expressed in language. — Metaphysician Undercover
Regarding ordinary language...
I'm all for striving to use as much common language as possible to explain something or other. The simpler the better assuming no loss in meaningful explanation. I'm also inclined to believe that Ockham's razor is worthy of guiding principle status, so...
— creativesoul
If it matters, not at all what OLP is about. — Antony Nickles
hope you see that this makes your rebuttal to my point appear to be that you know what reality is, and I do not.
— Antony Nickles
Yes, you suggested that a human being could remove oneself from the context of intention, and I think that's simply unreal. It's no different from asking me to accept a proposition which I strongly believe to be false. I'd tell you that if you believe that proposition you simply do not know the reality of the situation. — Metaphysician Undercover
To say that we ought to discuss these activities as if there is no intention involved would be foolish. — Metaphysician Undercover
..our shared lives...
— Antony Nickles
Again, this is incoherent to me. My life is my life, and yours is yours. We are separated by space, we are born and die at different times. There is no such thing as a shared life, except perhaps the Siamese twins'. — Metaphysician Undercover
I'm in dire need of getting over the the name of the method, and looking more towards understanding the benefits thereof a bit better than I currently do/can. — creativesoul
I've spent a lot of time reading the 'canonical' OLP philosophers,
* * *
OLP spawned some of the most exquisite methodological discussions about how inquiry itself works that I've ever read.
* * *
To read Ryle on what constitutes 'ordinary' language, what it is for words to have a 'use,' and so on, is truly a pleasure, and the back-and-forth between Ayer and Austin, and Mates and Cavell, are wonderful. I don't think analytic philosophy has ever reached such self-awareness and methodological heights again. It was a rare burst of sophistication. — Snakes Alive
The less-celebrated OLPers, such as Malcolm, Wisdom, Urmson, Ambrose, and Lazerowitz, are all worth reading in their own right. — Snakes Alive
"That language is dead is to say that writing comes before the speaking (as if opposite of Derrida I believe Joshs)."
--Antony Nickles
Writing’ for Derrida means that what is spoken is not immediately understood but is deferred, delayed in its reception. — Joshs
It's a simple solution for you to claim that language is necessary for rules but rules are not necessary for language. I would agree that language is necessary for the linguistic expression of rules (as you imply), simply because language is necessary for any linguistic expression. — Luke
But why are rules not necessary for language? Is your position that language has no rules? — Luke
Rules can be expressed in language. They don't have to be. — Luke
Meta either cannot or will not set aside his framework... — creativesoul
I understand you want to let me know that you disagree, but you simply rejected this with no justification than I'm not living in reality. — Antony Nickles
This is unacceptable behavior. — Antony Nickles
I appreciate the opportunity to attempt to refine how I present this material but a blanket denial in the end leaves nothing to say. — Antony Nickles
It must seem like a lonely world. — Antony Nickles
Question: are images part and parcel of human mentality?
— Mww
Well this sounds like a loaded question......
Yeah...no. No more loaded than the title of the article, must we mean what we say. No, it is not necessarily the case that we must mean what we say, and, yes, images are part and parcel of human mentality or no they are not.
......what is "mentality"? Are we saying imagination? Or just the ability to bring up an image?....
Mentality is whatever you think it is, and from which whether images are part and parcel of it, is then determinable. We are not saying imagination, because we already said mentality. If it was the ability to bring up images, then they are presupposed and the question remains as to their part and parcel.
.......but I'd need more I think. — Antony Nickles
That's all you took from that essay? — Antony Nickles
Well, you are officially in charge of this thread. I'm finding "explaining" it is either beyond me or does little to shift people's framework to consider it, and I'm afraid I don't seem to have the skills to provide compelling examples and don't even do a good job of stealing Austin's or Cavell's. I have posted a few other oblique attempts, and I will, of course, carry this on. — Antony Nickles
Philosophy is, in some sense, stupid or defective, but we're cognitively disposed to fall into its traps. — Snakes Alive
s I don't think philosophy died – it just went on doing pretty much what it did before when people got bored of one way of doing it and moved on. It's a matter of historical contingency and fashion. It’s not any better now than it was then, though. — Snakes Alive
here’smy list of philosophers who absorbed the lessons of olp ( whether they read it or not) and moved on from it: — Joshs
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.