Wittgenstein will put his arguments in weird arrangments to make them appear more profound than they perhaps are — Gregory
That is an oversimplification which upon analysis turns out to be false — Metaphysician Undercover
Well here again that dont apply
But I’ve gotta use words when I talk to you. — Eliot
How are you supposed to know what to do without being told what to do? — Metaphysician Undercover
I think what makes a rule a rule, is to be explicitly stated. — Metaphysician Undercover
'Rules' is just a metaphor to be interpreted in context. — j0e
Who told you that this is the only acceptable use of the word "rule"? — Luke
However, please do not conflate your idiosyncratic way of using "rule" with the philosophically respected way, or you'll be charged with equivocation. — Metaphysician Undercover
solar system — Metaphysician Undercover
Who told you that this is the only acceptable use of the word "rule"? — Luke
The solar system in the world
However, if there was no mind to observe the world, would the solar system ontologically exist in the world ? As Berkeley wrote: "to be is to be perceived" and "The objects of sense exist only when they are perceived; the trees therefore are in the garden... no longer than while there is somebody by to perceive them." There is a basic conundrum in asking whether a solar system can exist independently of a mind when the concept "solar system" is dependent on the existence of the mind. The definition in the Cambridge Dictionary for "to exist" ends up being circular, but links to the following words - real - imagination - fact - proof - information - true. I continue with my pen and Eiffel Tower analogy that things don't ontologically exist in the world outside the mind because there is no information within any of the parts that links it to a whole. — RussellA
The word "whole"
There is a world of matter, energy, space and time, in which there are parts and wholes. However, it is possible to refer to a whole as a set of parts without giving the word "whole" an ontological status. The status of the set is open to debate. On the one hand, Aristotle in Metaphysics wrote: “In the case of all things which have several parts and in which the totality is not, as it were, a mere heap, but the whole is something besides the parts, there is a cause; for even in bodies contact is the cause of unity in some cases, and in others viscosity or some other such quality. On the other hand, Eubulides used mathematical induction to show that a heap of sand cannot exist, in that i) A single grain of sand is not a heap. ii) If n grains do not make a heap, adding one grain doesn’t create a heap.
IE, the word "whole" does not of necessity have an ontological status.
Summary
IE, I agree that the "solar system" as a concept in the mind is a whole, a unity, and not divisible, but as regards the solar system in a world independent of any mind, the solar system is a whole (in the sense of a set or collection) that has parts that are spatially seperated. — RussellA
The law of identity stipulates that there are things independent of the mind, and these things have an identity proper to themselves. — Metaphysician Undercover
the question of existence of a "whole" — Metaphysician Undercover
We are faced with the insolvable problem of how the mind can know things that exist independently of the existence of the mind. — RussellA
I think what makes a rule a rule, is to be explicitly stated. — Metaphysician Undercover
There is no rule (used my way) for the use of "rule". — Metaphysician Undercover
OK, I'll recant, — Metaphysician Undercover
...is unconvincing for this reason. As it stands it is impossible to confirm its validity, let alone that it is cogent. It mixes terms - mind, necessity, dependency - that need considerable work to be understood.Since it does not say that a mind is necessary for a thing to be the thing that it is, yet it is necessary that a thing is the thing that it is, we can conclude that to be the thing that it is, does not require a mind. Simplified: "things are independent of the mind". — Metaphysician Undercover
Paraphrasing Kant as regards a priori pure intuitions, we can imagine the concept of empty space, but we cannot imagine the concept of there being no space. — RussellA
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.