Maybe it is just the way it was said. Sounded absolute.

since none of us is ever… — J

None. Not one.
Is ever. Not ever.
Absolutely no one can possibly be.
Since none of us is ever.

Sounds like if someone say “well one time I realized a moment void of all my baggage, discarded everything, even this language, and was encumbered by no context, and had a view of all things” if someone said that, we don’t have to care about anything else they say, because “since none of us is ever” baggageless and contextless.

Maybe no one is.

Just sounds so absolute. Which might contradict the thrust of the position.

Ahhh. Well, if someone were to say that to me, at least, then I'd ask more about what they mean and we could proceed, if they wanted to anyways. I don't know if I'd rule it out on principle -- since it is just from my context that I see these things.

..,since none of us is ever… — J

In order to say that, don’t you need to see all people at all times?

Isn’t that so high above all space and time, like from nowhere? If you were always in a context with baggage, how can you get to a place where you can say “no one is ever”?

I don't know if I'd rule it out on principle -- since it is just from my context that I see these things. — Moliere

Ok, so does that mean you would never use the phrase “since no one is ever”?

That would seem more consistent to me - to avoid saying things like that.

Just sounds so absolute. Which might contradict the thrust of the position. — Fire Ologist

I see. You're right to point out that never/always statements are often made in contexts that imply foundationalism. But I don't think that has to be the case. I meant it more or less as @Srap Tasmaner paraphrased it: Given my best take on reality, it looks to me like it's impossible to arrive contextless and baggage-less . . . But I'm happy to add those qualifications.

Given my best take on reality, — J

:up:

Makes sense again.

Leaves open the possibility or at least hope of baggage free observation.

What said

Just a little language police stop and frisk.

Oh, I'm in favor of the nitpickers, so pick away anytime.

Leaves open the possibility or at least hope of baggage free observation. — Fire Ologist

Well, in a sense. I find the idea of a view from nowhere both seductive and alarming. It keeps calling, but I suspect it's a chimera.

Just a little language police stop and frisk. — Fire Ologist

Hey, you didn't read me my rights. I want a lawyer! . . . . oh wait, you are a lawyer.

I'm in favor of the nitpickers — Moliere

I am too. My point since the beginning here is that we assert in absolutes in order to move towards the world and truth, and we need to dissect every assertion with rigor to keep it honest (valid and sound).

Personally, I want to be able to say “no one ever” about the world. I hate the police as much as the next guy. Most of the cops I meet are Wittegensteinians. I am more often the perpetrating violator.

But I agree we need those cops, and add we need both metaphysics and analytics, in that order, for sake of logically coherent, sound assertions about the world.

I wonder most about where Banno said in the OP “perhaps we need both.”

I’d say we certainly do. No one ever says something meaningful about the world without both. (But I can hear the police sirens again…

Well, actually I meant the opposite.

I can put it another way: it's a question of whether the subject who judges things like narratives and paradigms and cities is thick or thin. In the thick conception, the subject comes with a history, a culture, a worldview, all that relativist business; in the thin view, he comes armed with rationality.

It's in that sense that taking the subject as a quite abstract rational judge is treating them as starting over each moment, entirely without the sort of baggage we all actually have. — Srap Tasmaner

It seems to me that no one in the thread is claiming such a thing, but you anticipate this objection:

I think Count Timothy von Icarus is especially interested in being in position to tell someone that they *should* put down some baggage they're carrying. The grounds for saying so would be (a) that this particular burden does not help you in making rational judgments, and (b) that Tim can tell (a) is the case by exercising rational judgment. (Stop thinking you need to sacrifice chipmunks to the river every spring so it will thaw, would be a typical Enlightenment example.)

I'm not sure how close that is to your view (or if it is in fact Tim's), but that's the sort of thing I imagine is on the table when people say they want an overarching standard. — Srap Tasmaner

First I think it is quite important to note the initial claim. @Count Timothy von Icarus did not start a thread saying, "I want an overarching standard." It is the other way around, where @Banno started a thread after private conversation with @J, opposing overarching standards.

Be that as it may, let's suppose someone claims that there is an overarching standard and that Jake has violated it. Does it follow that the person has a thin and not a thick conception of paradigms, or that Jake is being asked to put down baggage? I don't see why it would. All that is needed is a common thread running through every paradigm, from which the standard can be derived. The paradigms can be as thick as you like.

Given my best take on reality, it looks to me like it's impossible to arrive contextless and baggage-less . . . But I'm happy to add those qualifications. — J

Leaves open the possibility or at least hope of baggage free observation. — Fire Ologist

Yes, "I believe there is an overarching standard absolutely precluding contextlessness, but I could be wrong." So @J believes in an overarching standard. That he thinks he could be wrong is neither here nor there, since no one is claiming infallibility.

The objection here is, "That's not a 'standard', that's just how reality is!" Again:

The central contention of the thread can still be denied even if there is no view from nowhere, so long as there is a common thread running through the entire domain of “contexts.” The quintessential example would be the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), which is not merely a psychological principle; it is something that we both can and cannot choose to obey or disobey. It is not merely elective or optional, and yet it is nevertheless normative. This is precisely to the point, given that the “real ambiguity” I spoke about exists because we are talking about “exclusion” from the rational community, and it is not at all clear that one can opt in or out of the rational community. — Leontiskos

I want to say that the question of this thread is bound up with the question of whether we all have common aims, or more precisely, common ends. — Leontiskos

@Count Timothy von Icarus is not a police officer going around saying, "You're now in the jurisdiction of Venezuela, and therefore you're beholden to this Venezuelan law I have here in my pocket!" He is engaged in a Socratic move, "Although you don't know it, you just contradicted yourself. And if you think you don't care about contradicting yourself, then I will show you that you really do care about it."

it is not at all clear that one can opt in or out of the rational community.
— Leontiskos

I want to say that the question of this thread is bound up with the question of whether we all have common aims, or more precisely, common ends.
— Leontiskos — Leontiskos

Good.

Count Timothy von Icarus is not a police officer going — Leontiskos

Yes. I was playing language police. This isn’t just about language.

He is engaged in a Socratic move, "Although you don't know it, you just contradicted yourself. And if you think you don't care about contradicting yourself, then I will show you that you really do care about it." — Leontiskos

Yes. We all need to recognize “since no one ever” about the world, in order to adhere to the PNC.

Added: So the language police may have over stepped frisking J for saying “no one ever”, or the Wittgensteinian law book may need to be revised.

In general I wouldn't define it onone way or the other but would leave it to the particular referent (the particular case of incommensurability) -- but I do think the more interesting case would be when we say "No, not even one strand relates but the referent is the same"

For this I just go to science and history -- they both speak about "the world", but in their own particular idioms and ways of making inferences. They both mean "reality", and they mean it in a realist way such as "reality outside of my particular opinions about reality, but rather what the best methods/values which produce knowledge say"

At least that's the example which impresses me the most... — Moliere

There is simply no argument here to the effect that "science" and history have no common thread.

It'd be foolish to say either scientists or historians don't know anything because of the universalization of the standards of science or history exclude the other. Much better to shrug and say "I'm not sure how these guys relate -- perhaps we don't translate one into the other, but are about the same thing, and so demonstrate different facets of the same reality" — Moliere

We can say that "science" and history have a common thread without saying that either "scientists" or historians don't know anything. Similarly, saying, "I'm not sure how they relate," says nothing about whether there is a common thread.

I'm afraid these are all invalid arguments.

We've already seen a common thread between "science" and history, namely, "Do not falsify your data."

Be that as it may, let's suppose someone claims that there is an overarching standard and that Jake has violated it. Does it follow that the person has a thin and not a thick conception of paradigms, or that Jake is being asked to put down baggage? I don't see why it would. All that is needed is a common thread running through every paradigm, from which the standard can be derived. The paradigms can be as thick as you like.

Yeah, that's one of the points I wanted to make. There are certain assumptions that need to be made for it to be the case that all general epistemic principles (or any at all) must require a standpoint outside any paradigm to achieve. I don't think those are good assumptions though.

Consider Plato's "being ruled by the rational part of the soul," as an epistemic meta-virtue. The basic idea that, ceteris paribus, one will tend towards truth if one prefers truth to falsity and one's pursuit of truth is not derailed by other concerns (passions and appetites) that are prioritized above truth, doesn't seem to require any move to a paradigmless space. It is rather a statement about all paradigms, made in the context of a particular thinker. But unless it is impossible to make statements about paradigms from without, this doesn't preclude its being true. Plato might be wrong, but he isn't wrong because his claim requires standing outside "Platonism."

Note too that, if it is asserted that Plato can only speak about what is true for his own paradigm (that truth is bound to paradigms), this charge would apparently refute itself, since it would itself also be limited to a particular paradigm. Yet this objection would also seem to rest on the same absolutization of paradigms into "what we know" instead of "how we know."

But this is also not an appeal to an axiomatized system or "rules," or epistemology as a system. Indeed, Plato has a marked skepticism towards language and sensible realities (including cultural institutions) as a whole, not a preference for a "perfected system" that exists within the context of these.

I wonder most about where Banno said in the OP “perhaps we need both.”

I’d say we certainly do. No one ever says something meaningful about the world without both. (But I can hear the police sirens again… — Fire Ologist

I think that's right. Those darn sirens. :smile:

There is simply no argument here to the effect that "science" and history have no common thread. — Leontiskos

I did note that argument doesn't lead to truth. I gave two examples to talk through together.

Arguments will be used along the way, but I noted the things that differ between them -- time is more questionable, but causality is easier to establish.

Though "science" in scare quotes makes me think you have something else in mind, and the examples are not persuasive.

I'm fine with them not being persuasive -- I only said what persuades me.

Though "science" in scare quotes makes me think you have something else in mind, and the examples are not persuasive. — Moliere

I just find it odd to separate scientific study from historical study. This bears on the discussion of "scientificity" from <another thread>.

Oh, not by choice -- not a priori -- but a posteriori I started to note how they're different.

It's certainly odd. I recognize that what I say is odd.

As it turns out it seems reality is odd. The absurd, rather than the coherent, marks reality better.

Yeah, that's one of the points I wanted to make. There are certain assumptions that need to be made for it to be the case that all general epistemic principles (or any at all) must require a standpoint outside any paradigm to achieve. I don't think those are good assumptions though. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Right. :up:

Consider Plato's "being ruled by the rational part of the soul," as an epistemic meta-virtue. The basic idea that, ceteris paribus, one will tend towards truth... — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree. I've been pondering misology, and the way that the passions can hijack the reason.

For example, if someone wants to never admit they're wrong, then might achieve that by holding that every narrative is equal, including their own. They might avoid clarity in conversation, avoid being "put on the record," avoid answering questions, etc. All of that is great if you want to ensure that you will never be proven wrong. Opacity in general is a great help. But this is all passion-driven. The desire to never be wrong, or to never be shown to be wrong, is derived from the passions, not the reason. It's not at all clear how one can argue against such passions.

There are certain assumptions that need to be made for it to be the case that all general epistemic principles (or any at all) must require a standpoint outside any paradigm to achieve. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the work you did can be utilized elsewhere, which is why I keep bringing it up. Don't we all agree that data should not be falsified? How did we do that? Did we all have to step outside ourselves in order to recognize it, grab hold of the truth, and hold on tight as we stepped back inside ourselves? How were we all able to recognize that standard even though some of us live in St. Louis and others live in Kansas City?

What I find funny about the "hermeneuticists" I have encountered is that their practice shows them to be looking for a "view from nowhere," even as they speak against it. They attempt to float above the fray with endless qualifications and contextualizations, and to what end? They clearly think that they are approaching some kind of objective view. My approach is much different, it is, "Cut out the fat and just give me an argument for what you believe to be true." Jump into the water right where you are and start swimming. That's how you get somewhere. It's no coincidence that many of the folks who fret day and night about frameworks and contexts and all the rest of it are remarkably bad at giving and recognizing arguments. That sort of dancing can become an excuse for avoiding arguments; a way to "rise above" without getting your hands dirty.

dancing can become an excuse for avoiding arguments — Leontiskos

Describes half of this thread.

Cut out the fat and just give me an argument for what you believe to be true. — Leontiskos

Yes, please.

What I find funny about "hermeneuticists" is that their practice shows them to be looking for a "view from nowhere," even as they speak against it. They attempt to float above the fray with endless qualifications and contextualizations, and to what end? — Leontiskos

To no end. I am beginning to think that as soon as they see an end in sight, they feel the need to back track, take a turn, or just stop moving. Ends, like foundations, are anathema to the purely analytic philosophic enterprise. And sets a standard that cannot be met, namely, deconstruction without construction.

I am beginning to think that as soon as they see an end in sight, they feel the need to back track, take a turn, or just stop moving. — Fire Ologist

It's .

Ends, like foundations, are anathema to the purely analytic philosophic enterprise. And sets a standard that cannot be met, namely, deconstruction without construction. — Fire Ologist

I mostly agree, but I would say that Analytics do hold to a standard of consistency. Hence the between two self-described dissectors in the thread.

@Banno tends to become "aimless" whenever he tries to move beyond a criterion of consistency, as he is doing in this thread.

I'm home from work now, and was prepared to address what I thought was a very interesting response from @Count Timothy von Icarus, but I see in the meantime there has been an awful lot of badmouthing other forum members.

So I'll not be participating in this thread anymore. @Fire Ologist and @Leontiskos, I think you should be ashamed of yourselves.

@Leontiskos, back when I was a mod, I would have warned you pages ago to cease your relentless attempts to diagnose "the problem with @J". It's inappropriate. It's disrespectful. And in my view it's a violation of the site guidelines, but none of the other mods have ever been as committed to reining in this sort of behavior as I was.

Don't bother defending yourselves. I am not interested.

And it is not “us” versus “them” personally. I am happy to live in the world with them and respect them as I respect myself and you both. “Them” refers to “their arguments”. — Fire Ologist

You are misreading the situation. Easy to do on an online forum.

(See also )

So I'll not be participating in this thread anymore. Fire Ologist and @Leontiskos, I think you should be ashamed of yourselves.

@Leontiskos, back when I was a mod, I would have warned you pages ago to cease your relentless attempts to diagnose "the problem with @J". It's inappropriate. It's disrespectful. And in my view it's a violation of the site guidelines, but none of the other mods have ever been as committed to reining in this sort of behavior as I was. — Srap Tasmaner

I think that's nonsense. From your very first post you've had a biased read on the whole discussion. The strawmen you've relied on and your inflammatory language throughout is indicative of this (e.g. "juvenile," "unserious," "policing," "stuck," "imprisoned," "anxious," "baggage"). Your whole concept of moving from St. Louis to Kansas City begs the question, as has been pointed out. And you haven't even acknowledged the other ways to consider the question. But it is convenient that you won't have to confront that growing laundry list now, isn't it?

I am disappointed to see this silliness from you. @Fire Ologist said it very well:

I’d be allowed to treat the witness as hostile to the court.

And then the Judge would force you to answer “are all narratives acceptable or not?” The most liberal progressive judge would demand, “in my court, on my record, nothing proceeds until you answer, or the charge that you say ‘all narratives may be true’ stands. You swore to tell the truth in my court and now we see you can still say anything you want, possibly giving no meaning to the ‘truth’ you swore, since you won’t answer the question and think it doesn’t matter.” — Fire Ologist

And in my view it's a violation of the site guidelines — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, insofar as I think moderators ought to address the way that @Banno and @J make accusations and insinuations before prevaricating and hiding in the bushes, thread after thread.

This thread is a testament to what happens when the targets of catty, moralizing sniping confront the snipers, and it turns out the snipers have nothing of substance to offer.

Would this not mean that some people might practice compassion even whilst holding an ostensibly intolerant belief system? Ye shall know them by their works. — Tom Storm

We have to go out of our way to show compassion on a message board. I’ve said multiple times in here and otherwise that I respect Banno and this and other posts.

I’ve made clear where I agree with ideas and specific language from Banno and J.

I get along with J.

Banno is intolerant of me.

And Banno and J can take care of themselves.

"the problem with J" — Srap Tasmaner

Much like your strange claim that I was concerned with pseudoscience in this thread, this claim is similarly lacking in accuracy. None of the posts you reference make any mention of @J. I certainly don't think he is a "hermeneuticist." I had in mind those who explicitly appeal to "philosophical hermeneutics."

Nevertheless, it is quite natural to opine on what @J believes when he refuses to answer question after question, and also to opine on why he constantly refuses. It's no coincidence that human systems such as courts have remedies for that form of evasion. The solution is simple: @J merely needs to engage in philosophy and answer the questions posed to him. To engage the members of the forum. That is a guideline here, after all. As is the guideline against "evangelization," such as the incessant opposition to so-called "monism."

Thanks, Srap.