Rather he would track down exactly what is going on when one indulges in philosophical speculation. If it is found wanting, then so much the worse for philosophy. — Banno
There is an argument, rarely actually articulated, but often implied, that while the table might appear solid, it really mostly consists of space, and hence it is really not solid at all. When set out explicitly the argument is obviously false. — Banno
notice that it is not obvious that the 'sensory domain' and the 'physical world' are somehow names for the very same thing; but more, it is not at all clear what the 'sensory domain' is, nor what the 'physical world' is. Indeed, if we are to take the claims of scientists as they stand, it is clear that what we sense is very different from what is described by physics. So if these are to be our guide as to what is the 'real' world', we had best put some effort into rendering the two consistent. So in this I think we are in agreement that there is a problem, but differ as to the way we ought proceed. — Banno
Notice that this was done by removing the word "really"? And that this word was removed because it was seen that what it means depends on the context in which it is used? — Banno
Such a question can only be understood by framing it in terms of 'domains of discourse'. In different domains, it has different meanings, and I don't think there is an ultimate meaning independent of all domains. — Wayfarer
Austin occupies a place in philosophy of language alongside the Cantabrigian Wittgenstein and Austin's fellow Oxonian, Gilbert Ryle, in staunchly advocating the examination of the way words are ordinarily used in order to elucidate meaning and by this means avoid philosophical confusions. — Wiki
In the Twentieth Century, philosophy was like a confused and clumsy person who repeatedly tries to commit suicide, but keeps failing, though with the addition of debilitating damage at each attempt. The public face of philosophy was often, for many years, people like Bertrand Russell or Jean Paul Sartre, whose personal, moral, political, and philosophical follies were the kinds of things that will be no less than an embarrassment for posterity. In the classic sophistry of a dilemma of false alternatives, respected academic philosophy often seemed to have offered only two choices:
First, the sterility and agnosticism of positivistic, scientistic, and merely analytic schools, characteristically, if not always originally, Anglo-American, which have frequently denied the possibility of knowledge in metaphysical or ethical matters, and sometimes the possibility of constructive philosophical knowledge at all, with, according to Karl Popper, a "concentration upon minutiae (upon 'puzzles') and especially upon the meanings of words; in brief .... scholasticism." As Allan Bloom said, "Professors of these schools [i.e. positivism and ordinary language analysis] simply would not and could not talk about anything important, and they themselves do not represent a philosophic life for the students." Students and the intellectually curious looking for some concern, any concern, about the truths of being and value, the content of wisdom, or some humane purpose, found instead what has aptly been called a "valley of bones." — Kelly Ross
That is exactly the point I was talking about, but plainly you didn't get it. — Wayfarer
Has it? I rather think that the table will remain solid, regardless of what physicists say. Do you disagree?...science itself has thrown our common-sense notion of reality into question... — Wayfarer
A visiting philosopher is said to have wondered aloud: ‘But Professor Austin, what great problems of philosophy are illuminated by these inquiries?’ Austin considered a moment, then replied: ‘Roughly, all of them.’
You asked me whether I feel that I am information or energy. I would probably go for energy, because I am organic. I wonder if others wonder whether others feel that way or differently, but it may be a starting point for phenomenological approaches. — Jack Cummins
I rather think that the table will remain solid, regardless of what physicists say. Do you disagree? — Banno
Supposing that Wittgenstein and Austin did not address "anything important" is, it seems to me, based on a misreading of what they were doing. — Banno
I think the energy is related to the spirit / soul we feel ourselves to be — Pop
I tend towards the view that things are configurations of consciousness — Wayfarer
...science itself has thrown our common-sense notion of reality into question... — Wayfarer
I rather think that the table will remain solid, regardless of what physicists say. Do you disagree?
— Banno
What is the point of the question? — Wayfarer
I think the energy is related to the spirit / soul we feel ourselves to be
— Pop
What about intelligence? Or mind? Where does that fit into the picture? Is it ‘a product of’ energy? I think not. — Wayfarer
Yājñavalkya says: "You tell me that I have to point out the Self as if it is a cow or a horse. Not possible! It is not an object like a horse or a cow. I cannot say, 'here is the ātman; here is the Self'. It is not possible because you cannot see the seer of seeing. The seer can see that which is other than the Seer, or the act of seeing. An object outside the seer can be beheld by the seer. How can the seer see himself? How is it possible? You cannot see the seer of seeing. You cannot hear the hearer of hearing. You cannot think the Thinker of thinking. You cannot understand the Understander of understanding. Eṣa ta ātmā sarvāntaraḥ: That is the ātman."
Nobody can know the ātman inasmuch as the ātman is the Knower of all things. So, no question regarding the ātman can be put, such as "What is the ātman?' 'Show it to me', etc. You cannot show the ātman because the Shower is the ātman; the Experiencer is the ātman; the Seer is the ātman; the Functioner in every respect through the senses or the mind or the intellect is the ātman. As the basic Residue of Reality in every individual is the ātman, how can we go behind It and say, 'This is the ātman?' Therefore, the question is impertinent and inadmissible. The reason is clear. It is the Self. It is not an object.
“Everything other than the ātman is stupid; it is useless; it is good for nothing; it has no value; it is lifeless. Everything assumes a meaning because of the operation of this ātman in everything. Minus that, nothing has any sense.
Then Uṣasta Cākrāyana, the questioner kept quiet. He understood the point and did not speak further. — Brihadaranyaka Upaniṣad
When I raise the issue of solidity, I am speaking about foundations and strengths and, of a capacity to stand firm and not be thrown asunder. — Jack Cummins
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.