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
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
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
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
↪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
I must admit I'm a bit lost. Do pardon me. — 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.).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
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.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
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? — chiknsld
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?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
mis-uses of language that I described as being the the root of most philosophical problems. — Harry Hindu
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.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
https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/fallacies-of-language/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
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.