His research was flawed and useless, but there's other research that concentrates on color. — frank
— T 6.421Ethics is transcendental.
(Ethics and æsthetics are one.)
That looks like a somewhat Kantian move... — Srap Tasmaner
The thing is, the logical structure LW finds in the world is clearly deduced (not to say "projected") from the logical structure of language. — Srap Tasmaner
I agree.On one side of the limit is what can be said, on the other is what can be, or experienced. — Fooloso4
The "world of facts" is an ambiguous expression. Actually, a fact is something that is known or proved to be true. And it is independent of language. It can be subjective: what I believe is a fact, it's a fact for me. It can also be a "common" fact: it is a fact, for me and other people who know me or to people to whom I can show/prove it, that I know how to ride a bicycle. It has nothing to do with language.it is only what is within the world of facts that can be addressed by language. — Fooloso4
The "world of facts" is an ambiguous expression. Actually, a fact is something that is known or proved to be true. — Alkis Piskas
2 What is the case — a fact — is the existence of states of affairs.
when we say "my world", we mean my reality, everything that is in it — Alkis Piskas
5.632 The subject does not belong to the world but it is a limit of the
world.
5.633 Where in the world is a metaphysical subject to be noted?
You say that this case is altogether like that of the eye and the field of sight. But you do not really see the eye.
That's true. I have certainly not studied his work, but from what you tell me, I undestand that one needs to learn a new language, different from the language most philosophers --and people, in general-- use!This is not say that this is the correct or only meaning of a fact, but if we are to understand him we need to begin with the way he uses terms — Fooloso4
I think that this is --more or less-- what most people mean too. See, Wittgenstein is not "public material".when we say "my world", we mean my reality, everything that is in it
— Alkis Piskas
That may be what you mean but not what he means. — Fooloso4
I undestand that one needs to learn a new language, different from the language most philosophers --and people, in general-- — Alkis Piskas
This may be true. But they shouldn't. If they do, it means they are themselves "idiosyncratic" or even not so stable mentally. Yes, as extreme as this might sound. Mental health depends a lot on rationality. When it is not stable, one can write or say things that don't make sense or are unsound, not based on logic. Rationality includes or implies analytical ability. Without that, one cannot go far philosophising!Many of the philosophers have some terms idiosyncratically. Why they do is an interesting question. — Fooloso4
If they do, it means they are themselves "idiosyncratic" or even not so stable mentally. — Alkis Piskas
A classic example is Descartes's "I think therefore I am", which has been, and still is, discussed a lot. In such cases, one has to find out why, the context in which, the philosopher said what he said. And usually, this can be easily found and explained. It's rearily a question of language. — Alkis Piskas
He was never "dark" for me. He was very clear and his views can still stand today; they are timeless. He was/is "dark" only to people who couldn't/cannot understand the meaning of what he said. His language, however, was very clear and exact! — Alkis Piskas
You mean ... you can undestand its use, right? Which is OK. But it is far from usual, i.e. from what one can find in a standard dictionary and from what most people understand by it, isn't it? This was exactly was I was talking about! I add here something that I hope will make my point more clear: 1) People should be able to look up the words in dictionaries to know/undestand their meaning, 2) In a discussion one must use terms with their most common meaning or else use other words/terms in their place, which convey better what they actually mean and 3) one should not have to study the work of a philosopher to understand what he means by a term! I can't make my point more clear than that. I have already done a lot!I do not find Wittgenstein's use of 'fact' unusual — Fooloso4
But it is far from usual — Alkis Piskas
Actually, a fact is something that is known or proved to be true. — Alkis Piskas
one should not have to study the work of a philosopher to understand what he means by a term! I can't make my point more clear than that. — Alkis Piskas
I think we lost the ball ... So I'll bring it back. All started from the definition/use you gave of the term "fact" as "the existence of states of affairs". Then you said you don't find this unusual, and talked about "hermeneutics" etc. That is where the thing got off track and my reaction was the above statement: "it is far from usual". And I gave three (more) simple reasons why this is so. No "hermeneutics" and that kind of stuff, which make things go out of track ... Now, after all that, you still ask "How so?"! The only explanation I can give is that you are thinking --or trying to think-- in a complicated way, instead of thinking in simple terms and using simple, pure logic. And that is the only way in which any discussion can take place and have a meaning. Otherwise, the ball gets lost. Which is what happened here.But it is far from usual
— Alkis Piskas
How so? — Fooloso4
I think we lost the ball — Alkis Piskas
The "world of facts" is an ambiguous expression. Actually, a fact is something that is known or proved to be true. — Alkis Piskas
The only explanation I can give is that you are thinking --or trying to think-- in a complicated way, instead of thinking in simple terms and using simple, pure logic. — Alkis Piskas
What's the first thing people learn as philosophy students?Which is why it's the first thing we learn as philosophy students — Garrett Travers
What's the first thing people learn as philosophy students?
I have never been one --not in a University-- and it is useful to know! — Alkis Piskas
I sure have! :smile:go into informal logic to learn how to cut through everyone's arguments. Which, I'm sure you've noticed here, are trash — Garrett Travers
I would say that I am "more strict" on that subject.But, you may be a bit more modest than I on that subject. — Garrett Travers
Thanks. But it's most probably because I am a little too strict! :smile:You seem pretty good at calling nonsense. — Garrett Travers
I thought ... I hoped you were going to mention things like clarity, precision, etc. in statements.
(It would help me in my next topic I plan to launch ...) — Alkis Piskas
Exactly! And if they are not standardized, or one doesn't use terms in their standardised meaning, he should then clarify what he actually means by them. There are cases where key or important terms in a statement-argument have different meanings, or their meaning is debatable, etc. (A classic example is the term "reality".)do you mean clarity in logical propositions and arguments as standardized by academia, oe something else? — Garrett Travers
There are cases where key or important terms in a statement-argument have different meanings, or their meaning is debatable, etc. (A classic example is the term "reality".) — Alkis Piskas
I'm not familiar with the term "reduction fallacies" so I skipped it! (Sorry. I do that sometimes! That's another thing one must not do in philosophical discussions! :grin:)that's why you have to watch out for reduction fallacies, — Garrett Travers
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.