• Cheshire
    1.1k
    I was going to say our differences of opinion imply something is subject to a degree of interpretation. I think that's what you are saying except with only one person involved.
  • hope
    216
    degree of interpretation.Cheshire

    The mind is limited by point of view and it's constantly changing.

    "A man can never step in the same river twice for he's not the same man and and it's not the same water."
  • Cheshire
    1.1k
    How limiting is it if it's constantly changing?
  • hope
    216
    How limiting is it if it's constantly changing?Cheshire

    Your real power is in your ability to adapt to the change.

    Reality is eternally changing and if you were not also you would be soon dead.
  • Cheshire
    1.1k
    Your real power is in your ability to adapt to the change.hope
    Leaves room to correct some mistakes. I can't imagine what it would be like if my first impression governed every experience completely.
    Reality is eternally changing and if you were not also you would be soon dead.hope
    Technically correct, but skating on out of scope. If you ceased to travel with the planet through space it would probably crush you. Speculating to be fair.
  • hope
    216


    Humans are nothing but a complex pattern and complexity is very fragile. So we better be very malleable if we're going to continue to exist. Glass shatters easily.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    He looks exclusively to logic and the necessary conditions it imposes on knowledge. This will not allow the world to "speak" and mostly, he is right about this. Do you know the color yellow? If you do, then you can say so, like knowing what a bank teller is. But no saying so, no knowing. Wittgenstein and Derrida are close here, in the way logic and language have no application in basic questions about actuality. But in the end, and Wittgenstien knew this well, it is Hamlet who wins the day, for "There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."Constance

    No saying, no knowing! Yes, precisely what I believe is Wittgenstein's position vis-à-vis epistemology (knowledge) which he equates with a person's world. Someone's world consists of the things this someone can express in words. Very socratic.

    What I know I can tell. — Socrates
    .

    Hamlet 1, Wittgenstein 0.
1678910Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.