We're derailing the thread! I'm partly responsible. Sorry OP. Good day Nickolasgaspar!

I get it, most of you have invested in specific metaphysical ideologies and people who mesh with your echo chamber are recognized as a treat so you feel then need to derail the conversation in an "unchallenging" state.

But that's the point. Are we talking about defining objects in the world, or defining objects in the mind. We need to make that clear or else we end up talking past each other. — Harry Hindu

I must admit I'm a bit lost. Do pardon me.

It's not that the world is not perfect. Perfect is just another model in the mind, and not a feature of the world outside of the mind. The world just is a certain way and the way we model it is another, but representative of the way it is. Life is not adapting to imperfections. It is adapting to the way things are, which is constantly changing. Using the terms, imperfection/perfection is implying that you have knowledge of what a perfect world would be like and that everyone would agree with you. — Harry Hindu

We not only adapt to truths, we do the opposite as well, adapt truths to us. Stoicism may have been popular 2.5k years ago, it no longer is; in fact the modern world is distinctly anti-stoic, won't you agree?

Come now to definitions vis-à-vis simplicity.

How, in your view, do the two relate?

As things get simpler, are they easier/harder to define?

In my humble opinion, it should be harder for the reason that entire series of definitions must begin somewhere (to avoid an infinite regress) and ergo there should be some undefined terms to get the ball rolling, these being invariably the simplest of them all.

P. S. I'm still in a bit of a fog so bear with me.

I get it, most of you have invested in specific metaphysical ideologies and people who mesh with your echo chamber are recognized as a treat so you feel then need to derail the conversation in an "unchallenging" state. — Nickolasgaspar

No, no! You've made some very important points. It's just that there are too many lines of inquiry for me to handle. I'm feeling overwhelmed. :smile:

Not really. Our first interaction was a shock to you when you find out that any philosophical inquiry needs to meet specific standards.....Since then you are meshing around finding excuses to avoid any real challenge.
Its your choice....

Not really. Our first interaction was a shock to you when you find out that any philosophical inquiry needs to meet specific standards.....Since then you are meshing around finding excuses to avoid any real challenge.
Its your choice.... — Nickolasgaspar

Ok. Can you lay down these standards (of philosophical inquiry) for my benefit? I'd love to know. I've always suspected there is one and I even have my own ideas about it. Just to be clear, I prefer free-flowing inquiry rather than channelling it down some particular path.

Try the following lecture...https://youtu.be/YLvWz9GQ3PQ

:ok:

↪Agent Smith ↪Haglund
I get it, most of you have invested in specific metaphysical ideologies and people who mesh with your echo chamber are recognized as a treat so you feel then need to derail the conversation in an "unchallenging" state. — Nickolasgaspar

Okay, being a good scientist, let's analyze this precious piece of language..

"I get it"

That's the question. Do you really get it? A tough one! What is there to get in the first place? The thread is about universal fine-tuning. But the "I get it" uttered here seems to refer to the next part of the sentence. So what is thought to be gotten? For that, let's continue our journey in "fun to analyze!!"

"most of you have invested in specific metaphysical ideologies"

Is actual research done for this conjecture? How many is most? What are "specific metaphysical ideologies"? Too vague to be of any scientific interest. We might conclude this part of the sentence is uttered as a rhetorical device by subject Nickolasgaspar. Let's continue!

"and people who mesh with your echo chamber"

This expression seems to conjecture there are people meshing with our echo chamber. Does subject N. compare our brains here with an echo chamber? Meaning that echoes of meshing around are heard? Does subject N. refer to brain surgery maybe? Is brainwashing involved? What is meant? Does he maybe mean we heard things or read stuff? If the last is the case than the expression seems to have objective and justified truth value. On we go!

"are recognized as a treat"

People who are "recognized as a treat". We can only fantasize what is meant here. As fantasizing has no place in rigid scientific discovery I will refrain. But, no worries.

"so you feel then need to derail the conversation"

It's unclear from the grammar or syntax, to which previous part of the sentence is referred here. To the specific metaphysical ideologies adopted, to the echo chamber meshing or to the treat part. And is this actual following? Do most feel the need to derail in the first place? If so, what is there to derail? Too much unclear and unfounded conjecture without any empirical content. Again we conclude nothing else that rhetorics are uttered. And then, a conversation is named. But is that what's going on here? Mmmm....On to the final analysis...

"in an "unchallenging" state"

This expression seems to me indicate that the conversation has become an unchallenging one on the basis of a previous conjecture for which there is no actual proof. Subject S. seems to indicate to be unchallenged. That might be the case.

So far, the analysis. Seeya next time!

"Ah! A woman philosophizing!" So I thought when looking at the video. She just introduced the actual philosopher... :sad:

I must admit I'm a bit lost. Do pardon me. — Agent Smith

We not only adapt to truths, we do the opposite as well, adapt truths to us. Stoicism may have been popular 2.5k years ago, it no longer is; in fact the modern world is distinctly anti-stoic, won't you agree? — Agent Smith

Yes, we are part of the world, not separate from it. The world affects us and we affect the world. This is simpler than trying to think of us as separate (dualism) from the world (soul vs body, mind vs. brain, physical vs. mental, etc.).

Come now to definitions vis-à-vis simplicity.

How, in your view, do the two relate?

As things get simpler, are they easier/harder to define?

In my humble opinion, it should be harder for the reason that entire series of definitions must begin somewhere (to avoid an infinite regress) and ergo there should be some undefined terms to get the ball rolling, these being invariably the simplest of them all. — Agent Smith

I don't see how having undefined terms to get the ball rolling actually gets the ball rolling. It seems to me that our terms have to refer to something or else there essentially is no ground to roll the ball on.

I think that our language-use has become so complex that it seems like the world is more complicated than it actually is. Most philosophical problems are the result of a mis-use of language, or poorly defined terms.

Well, I'm of the view that definitions, like propositions, are subject to the Münchhausen Trilemma:

1. Infinite regress of definitions/proofs
2. Circular definitions/proofs
3. Undefined terms/unproven assumptions.

What I wished to convey was that, at least in math, the choice is 3: We begin with undefined terms e.g. points.

What I wished to convey was that, at least in math, the choice is 3: We begin with undefined terms e.g. points. — Agent Smith

What's this little idea you always seem to be alluding to about points Agent Smith?

:lol:

What's this little idea you always seem to be alluding to about points Agent Smith? — chiknsld

I can't remember the rest of the lecture! :rofl:

:snicker: lol

Well, I'm of the view that definitions, like propositions, are subject to the Münchhausen Trilemma:

1. Infinite regress of definitions/proofs
2. Circular definitions/proofs
3. Undefined terms/unproven assumptions.

What I wished to convey was that, at least in math, the choice is 3: We begin with undefined terms e.g. points. — Agent Smith

Then it seems to me that you believe that ultimately no one is talking about anything. We would simply be making sounds with our mouths and making scribbles on this screen. What makes some scribble a word, and not just a scribble?

It seems to me that your trilemma only describes the mis-uses of language that I described as being the the root of most philosophical problems. Ironing out our definitions and determining whether or not they actually refer to some non-contradictory state-of-affairs resolves those philosophical problems.

point = .

That was easy.

mis-uses of language that I described as being the the root of most philosophical problems. — Harry Hindu

Could you kindly expand and elaborate? Gracias.

Are you going Wittgenstein on me?

mis-uses of language that I described as being the the root of most philosophical problems.
— Harry Hindu

Could you kindly expand and elaborate? Gracias.

Are you going Wittgenstein on me? — Agent Smith

I'd prefer to say that I'm going logical on you. It seems that one can logically arrive at that conclusion without ever having read Wittgenstein.

Every argument always involves a single claim about a single thing. Fallacies of language are ones in which the language you are using confuses this.

One kind of fallacy is called equivocation. In this fallacy a word or phrase has more than one meaning. In the argument, it is not clear which meaning you are using.

Another kind of fallacy is the misuse of metaphor. In this fallacy, the words and phrases that you are using do not have different meanings. However, you are using them in a non-literal fashion. — SimplyPhilosophy.org

https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/fallacies-of-language/