Heidegger also saw the boundaries of language as a problem for the articulation of being
— Joshs
So he opted to express 'what it's like' from the first person view, right? — Tate
The very idea of a concept of everything as all the furniture of the universe is what the grammatical structure of language imposes on us.
— Joshs
From what vantage point are you making this observation? Where are you standing? How did you get there? — Tate
Do you and your friends do this impromptu in the middle of the street sometimes? — Tate
I'm trying to think of a kind of explanation that's not about relationships to other things. — Tate
Would breaking a thing down into parts and relating the parts to each other serve as an explanation? — Tate
Yes, that's a kind of explanation that we employ sometimes, isn't it? — SophistiCat
Maps of the territory (i.e. "intellect") cannot encompass the territory (i.e. "everything"), right? — 180 Proof
... I can't think of any greater, more endemic, abuse of intelligence than using intelligence to deny its own limits — 180 Proof
In ideal conditions, the human intellect can explain anything, with one exception: it can't explain Everything. — Tate
I was in a philosophy meetup yesterday and the moderator insisted that I admit there are bald facts about aspects of the world, and denying such concrete facts in the name of postmodernism or whatever is dangerous because it can lead to an ‘anything goes’ atmosphere that breeds fascism. — Joshs
I guess I'm saying that the intellect will feel stymied by being unable to specify a cause for everything. — Tate
it can't explain Everything — Tate
Since philosophy is abour truth, it looks like it has no links to science and explanations. — Agent Smith
Is it? I thought philosophy's about folly (i.e. being unwise) – how to reduce foolery, how to unlearn foolish habits. :chin:Since philosophy is abour truth ... — Agent Smith
Wittgenstein claimed (there's an active thread on the topic, go look it up + there's a download link for the book Philosophical Investigations penned by Wittgenstein himself) that philosophy doesn't explain. I'm at a loss as to what he meant by it. — Agent Smith
If the meaning of the sign (roughly, that which is of importance about the sign) is an image built up in our minds when we see or hear the sign, then first let us adopt the method we just described of replacing this mental image by some outward object seen, e.g. a painted or modeled image. Then why should the written sign plus this painted image be alive if the written sign alone was dead? -- In fact, as soon as you think of replacing the mental image by, say, a painted one, and as soon as the image thereby loses its occult character, it ceased to seem to impart any life to the sentence at all. — W's excellent little Blue Book
Since philosophy is abour truth ...
— Agent Smith
Is it? I thought philosophy's about folly (i.e. being unwise) – how to reduce foolery, how to unlearn foolish habits. :chin: — 180 Proof
Who needs a proof when one has found a truth?
Not that science can't confirm to satisfy our curiosity for a proof. — PoeticUniverse
Personally, I don't understand the hype around Wittgenstein. — Agent Smith
What about the intellect, the ego (the "I"), and the self. Do you think they're explainable? — Tate
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.