He is apparently saying you should not talk about things that you are not certain about. Which rules out everything. — Andrew4Handel
If two people have headaches there is no way of comparing whether both of them are having the same type of pain... Does this mean we are closed off from others in some kind of profound way? — Andrew4Handel
Another person can't have my pains."—Which are my pains? What counts as a criterion of identity here? Consider what makes it possible in the case of physical objects to speak of "two exactly the same", for example, to say "This chair is not the one you saw here yesterday, but is exactly the same as it". In so far as it makes sense to say that my pain is the same as his, it is also possible for us both to have the same pain. — Wittgenstein, Philososphical Investigations, #253
Kant worries about responding to the threat of a deeper and more radical semantic skepticism. This is the claim that the very idea of our mental states purporting to specify how things are is unintelligible — plaque flag
I think that Descartes showed that by thinking one proved to oneself that one exists in some form.
Now I come to think of it seems to me that Descartes proves that Language works. — Andrew4Handel
In order to understand a sentence language must work (successfully carry meaning). — Andrew4Handel
Some language like "pain" we understand with reference to our own transparent experiences. — Andrew4Handel
So a cake can look like a dog, a bush at night maybe be mistaken for a dog, a fox maybe mistaken for a dog because they share traits or likeness. — Andrew4Handel
So my idea now in this thread is like that of Descartes, that our selves and experiences are immune from doubt but external reality is not immune from doubt. — Andrew4Handel
What the fuck is a self ? Who decided on one ghost per machine ? — plaque flag
Why can you not believe in the self before someone gives a causal/material explanation for it? — Andrew4Handel
A good reason a for a self is the unity of perception. — Andrew4Handel
I feel like skeptics of the self put in almost no effort to characterise it sensibly before dismissing it and as with most of mental content they do not feel under the same obligation as a biologist for example to present something that is solid, testable and can be manipulated. — Andrew4Handel
I think this is an angle. But what is the unity of perception ? Is this linguistic ? Is it part of our convention or habit of thinking about ourselves as a single ghost trapped in a single skull ? Why can't two fit in there ? Or four and twenty ? — plaque flag
As I have suggested if you don't believe in the validity of conscious states and language meaning you can't have a meaningful conversation. — Andrew4Handel
The reality of a perception is not a theory. Consciousness and self and language are not theories they are immediacies. Pain is an immediacy. We don't believe we are in pain we just have a state of pain. — Andrew4Handel
The unity of perception is an immediacy. — Andrew4Handel
Consciousness allows for unified perceptions. This logically requires one perceiver which is my self. — Andrew4Handel
You do seem to be supporting a position of extreme skepticism not warranted by anything we know.
Language works. Someone says "The building is on fire" I leave the building and save my life. Only in philosophy does such an extreme level of meaning skepticism exist that nobody applies to real life. And then we have to clarify which sense of meaning we mean pointless. Semantic meaning is the ability of language to carry accurate information. Language is not a game it works. — Andrew4Handel
It's about whether we know what the flunk we are talking about when we say P. — plaque flag
I thought you weren't a skeptic because this appears to be skepticism.
Do you know what I mean when I refer to a "dog"? I certainly do. I see dogs every day. — Andrew4Handel
The unity of perception is an immediacy Now it's hard to imagine this is anything like: pass me that screwdriver. So it's fair to ask what exactly or at least more exactly that's supposed to mean. — plaque flag
We obviously have some kind of average blurry understanding of what words mean. — plaque flag
How ? Why ? Says who ? — plaque flag
. "Broadly Cartesian foundationalism depends on there being a semantically autonomous stratum of thought" — plaque flag
As I see it, you are forced to understand me using the very system of concepts I'm trying to put in question. But I'm not at all trying to reduce you to some skepticism. It's just about looking at familiar things in a new way. — plaque flag
Or basically when their limitations aren't understood and just taken at face value in the most simple terms. Perfect example is economics (or political economy). Politicians can announce to be following one economic school or ideology, yet actually do usually everything else. But that understandably gives a bad rap to the school of thought as micromanagement of the economy usually (if not allways) fails.I also believe academic trends have had a destructive effect on society. When they are not criticised and if they become the overarching paradigm and silence critiques. — Andrew4Handel
experiences being characterised as beliefs. My beliefs are justified by my experiences but my experiences just are — Andrew4Handel
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.