what can be meant by perception if there are no brains? — plaque flag
Wait. What's the topic? — Fooloso4
you haven't even offered any argument for why you think meaning cannot be divorced from use, but just repeated claims that it's wrong, whatever that might mean. — Janus
I believe I have offered various arguments, and I constantly allude to philosophers who are famous for making just that kind of case. — plaque flag
It was a good analogy. — plaque flag
Note that I never offered the thesis 'meaning cannot be divorced from use.' I'm not saying it's a bad thesis. — plaque flag
Allusions to famous philosopher's arguments in lieu of laying them out in your own words (which I haven't seen but if there are such layings-out, then all you have to do is point out where they are) doesn't cut it for me; it reads like an appeal to authority. — Janus
I agree, which is why I'm glad I don't tend to do that. I'm a torrent of phine frases friend. — plaque flag
Oh yes we go way back actually. I will try to dance a merry jig. — plaque flag
Neither mathematical logic nor empirical testability are applicable in the case of the idea that meaning can be divorced from use. — Janus
I agree with Lakoff that we are metaphorical creatures. Math is understood metaphorically, even if proofs are theoretically computercheckable. — plaque flag
I agree that we are metaphorical creatures and that is precisely why I would say meaning can indeed be divorced from use. — Janus
The point of that paragraph is to illustrate the sense in which time and space - or duration and location - are provided by the observer and have no fixed or absolute reality outside that. — Wayfarer
Numbers as metaphors for objects? — Janus
Where is the observer ? Does it have a body ? — plaque flag
Now picture the same scene — but from no point of view. Imagine that you are perceiving it from every possible point within it and around it. Furthermore, imagine seeing it from every possible scale: as if you were seeing it as a mite on a blade of grass, in every location, and then also, as a creature of various sizes, up to a creature the size of the mountain peak, and from every possible vantage point. — Wayfarer
I'm not arguing that meaning cannot be divorced from use. Or for it. I'm saying that the meanings of words aren't 'anchored' in or founded upon immaterial private experience. I'm saying (roughly) that meaning is established 'between' cooperative and competitive animals. Surely a language is marked on our brain in some sense. We have evolved the hardware for just this kind of tribal software. — plaque flag
any point of view is not no point of view. — Wayfarer
What the observer brings to experience is a perspective, a point of view, only within which any statement about what is real or what exists is meaningful. — Wayfarer
What the observer brings to experience is a perspective, a point of view, only within which any statement about what is real or what exists is meaningful. Realism forgets the subject and seeks only explanations and fundamental causes which are inherent in the objective domain. But that is impossible, as the very source of that order is the mind of the observer (that's more or less straight out of Schopenhauer). — Wayfarer
This is why I like to talk about our 'lifeworld' — plaque flag
When philosophers talk about the “I”, they presuppose the “we”, because they do not mean a single empirical subject but the universal form of subjectivity, an idea that assumes its instantiation in a plurality of individuals, i.e., society. — Jamal
That is to say, idealism is parasitic on the real. — Jamal
:up:When philosophers talk about the “I”, they presuppose the “we”, because they do not mean a single empirical subject but the universal form of subjectivity — Jamal
I love Husserl, and I've been reading The Husserl Dictionary lately, and I'm impressed by all the terms he forged. As far as I can tell, he never stopped evolving and changing as a philosopher. As you may know, Derrida was a Husserl specialist, and of course Heidegger was the bad son.And who is well-known for having introduced the concept of 'lebenswelt' into the philosophical lexicon? — Wayfarer
In whatever way we may be conscious of the world as universal horizon, as coherent universe of existing objects, we, each "I-the-man" and all of us together, belong to the world as living with one another in the world; and the world is our world, valid for our consciousness as existing precisely through this 'living together.' We, as living in wakeful world-consciousness, are constantly active on the basis of our passive having of the world... Obviously this is true not only for me, the individual ego; rather we, in living together, have the world pre-given in this together, belong, the world as world for all, pre-given with this ontic meaning... The we-subjectivity... [is] constantly functioning.
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.