You should be a billionaire!
— Agent Smith
Yes, I too agree that 180 Proof is a modern day version of Socrates. :grin: — dclements
Why create a definition? There are standard definitions around. Again, this is what dictionaries are for.I can make a definition for free will which is easy to argue for — SatmBopd
Can't get this. In order to learn more about dogs, we should forget (for the time being) that they exist? What then are we going to talk about? Makes no sense.I think we would learn more about free will, if we forgot (for the time being) about whether it existed or not, and deeply picked apart the thing to which all the definitions imperfectly (or so I would argue) try to point. — SatmBopd
What is that "thing"? Shouldn't it be described? There's a thing that inspires humans, which they call "love". So what?1. There is a "thing" in the universe which a human experiences and it inspires the creation of a "concept" which the human terms "free will" — SatmBopd
"Articuations of the 'concept' inspire more humans to think about the 'concept' and NOT the 'thing'". What is the "thing"? From Oxford LEXICO: A concept (in philosophy) is "an idea or mental image which corresponds to some distinct entity or class of entities, or to its essential features, or determines the application of a term (especially a predicate), and thus plays a part in the use of reason or language. (Any other standard definition will do.) So, when you think of a concept, you connect it and you refer to the object/entity it belongs to. This is all. Now, each person in a discussion may have a different application in mind for, knowledge about and experience regarding that concept, but they should all talking about the same thing. If, e.g., we are talking about the feeling of "being in love" and I never had an experience with that, I still undestand what we are talking about; only it's not so "real" to me.2. "Free will" is then refered to on a consistant basis and articuations of the "concept" inspire more humans to think about the "concept" and NOT the "thing". Because all of the linguistic definitions, and articulations of "free will" are only robust labels (just as "free will" itself is only a label), none of them are the original "thing" — SatmBopd
Not necessarily. As I already said, the definitions just offer a frame reference. After that, the discussion may follow any course one can imagine.3. Since all discussion only revolves around the definitions and articuations of the "concept", the "thing" ... — SatmBopd
make explicit – problematize – this horizon. — 180 Proof
What problems do you see Wittgenstein dissolving? — Jackson
Our investigation is a grammatical one. Such an investigation sheds light on our problem by clearing misunderstandings away. Misunderstandings concerning the use of words, caused, among other things, by certain analogies between the forms of expression in different regions of language. (Philosophical Investigations, 90).
He regards philosophical problems to arise from linguistic confusion. By clearing up the language he shows the way out of the fly-bottle. — Fooloso4
the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true. — Bird-Up
everyone on board perished, they just don't know it. — Agent Smith
"Grammar" gets to be a bit abstract with Wittgenstein. — Jackson
He regards philosophical problems to arise from linguistic confusion. — Fooloso4
All discussions therefore, even if frutiful, are only fruitful in service of the "concepts" which are ultimately empty labels for the "thing". — SatmBopd
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/a-spirit-of-trust-a-reading-of-hegels-phenomenology/we cannot understand the ontological structure of the objective world . . . except in terms that make essential reference to what subjects have to do in order to count as taking the world to have that structure -- even though the world could have that structure in the absence of any subjects and their epistemic activities.
Nice. Instead of the cave, we have the sunken ship. Perhaps the corpse of philosophy has always also been its breakfast. — igjugarjuk
I wasn't aware that W had shown the way out of theism or matters connected with higher consciousness. Thoughts? Did he not just 'fly over' them? — Tom Storm
One might also give the name "philosophy" to what is possible before all new discoveries and inventions. (PI 126)
I am not interested in constructing a building, so much as in having a transparent view of the foundations of possible buildings. (CV 7).
... the words you utter or what you think as you utter them are not what matters, so much as the difference they make at various points in your life. (CV 85)
I wasn't aware that W had shown the way out of theism or matters connected with higher consciousness. Thoughts? Did he not just 'fly over' them? — Tom Storm
But here we need something to move you in a new direction - (I.e.this is how I understand it.) Once you have been turned around, you must stay turned around.
Wisdom is passionless. But faith by contrast is what Kierkegaard calls a passion. (CV 52)
He calls on faith to bring about this change. Philosophy, it would seem, is incapable of bringing this about: — Fooloso4
Is this a useful approach ? It seems not to provide us with much. — Tom Storm
One could read later W as a potential ally of theism in some way, right? — Tom Storm
Is there any way of conceptualizing transcendence outside of the tropes of idealism, higher consciousness, contemplative traditions or god/s? — Tom Storm
Can't get this. In order to learn more about dogs, we should forget (for the time being) that they exist? What then are we going to talk about? Makes no sense. — Alkis Piskas
What is that "thing"? Shouldn't it be described? There's a thing that inspires humans, which they call "love". So what? — Alkis Piskas
when you think of a concept, you connect it and you refer to the object/entity it belongs to. This is all. Now, each person in a discussion may have a different application in mind for, knowledge about and experience regarding that concept, but they should all talking about the same thing. If, e.g., we are talking about the feeling of "being in love" and I never had an experience with that, I still undestand what we are talking about; only it's not so "real" to me. — Alkis Piskas
Let's say we define God as the creator and ruler of the universe and source of everything, a supreme, etc. You may believe that such an entity exists and I not. It's OK. We are still in communication and undestanding between each other. — Alkis Piskas
Clearly there were/are very good reasons to philosophize rather than daydream which was what people were doing pre-philosophy (mythological sense-making). Like all good ideas, the ship of philosophy was launched successfully using rationality as an advanced engine. All was going well until the philosophical counterparts (Agrippa the skeptic being one) of Kurt Gödel wrecked the whole project, blew it clean out the water. — Agent Smith
But there are already definitions. Why must construction take place at all? This was my point from day one.or there to be definitions in the first place, abrtract, mental construction had to take place — SatmBopd
You are very welcome! :smile:Thanks for your thoughtful responses. — SatmBopd
But there are definitions. Why must construction take place at all? — Alkis Piskas
BTW, I don't know if you have realized that we have gone astray from the topic, which is not about definitions but "The Limitations of and "! :smile: — Alkis Piskas
In some ways both the earlier and later Wittgenstein are allies of theism, but in a way that is in line with what I pointed to in a previous post about "possibilities of phenomena". What he is doing clearing the ground to open up a way of looking at things. Tractarian silence is just such an opening up. — Fooloso4
The religious temperament is not common among analytic philosophers, but it is not absent. A number of prominent analytic philosophers are Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish, and others, such as Wittgenstein and Rawls, clearly had a religious attitude to life without adhering to a particular religion. But I believe nothing of the kind is present in the makeup of Russell, Moore, Ryle, Austin, Carnap, Quine, Davidson, Strawson, or most of the current professoriate.
He did not address the question of God as a matter of fact, but rather, conceptually. He did not attempt to confirm or deny the existence of God. His concern is with how the concept of God can play a role in our lives. — Fooloso4
He retains a sense of mystery, wonder, and awe of life. — Fooloso4
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.