I'm actually very dumb — Wheatley

I'm actually very dumb — Wheatley

Notice that despite this, it's not the case that just any words will do. You choose the words for your posts with great care. — Banno

I've seen a lot of posts still assuming "reality" or some placeholder--"consciousness", "meaning" (metaphysical, logical, internal, behavioral, scientific, etc.)--as if Kant hadn't already made a sufficient argument that we can't know the Thing-In-Itself (though he thought we could, through rationality, accomplish the same goal without an objective world). — Banno

Essence is expressed by Grammar. — Banno

Wittgenstein seems to be making a point on language - that words don't possess an essence or, positively speaking, meaning is use, and we could be, given that is so, talking past each other but language and philosophy are entirely different subjects.
— TheMadFool

I suggest thinking about our entire way of life. How do we feed ourselves? Raise children? Punish criminals? Get to work in the morning? Then think of talking as making conventional noises which help us coordinate practical action (including mating.) What's the meaning of a pheromone ? Of rattlesnake venom? — hanaH

An essence to my understanding is anything that sums up the true nature of a thing whatever that thing is.
— TheMadFool
There's way too many arbitrary word-uses in this statement for it to make sense. Existence before essence (i.e. forms-of-life contextualize language-games) – or didn't you read the memo? Plato / Aristotle (... Husserl) might say you fail to (com)prehend the essence of essence, Fool. Wtf are you talking about anyway – what does "the essence of Wittgenstein" even mean? :confused: — 180 Proof

This is ultimately true, by which I mean objectively true, but words do have an onomatopoeic quality, even if they are not used onomatopoeically, which yet imparts to them a subjective essence. For instance, there is a definite essence, surely subjective in nature, by which I mean that said essence exists as the word is percieved by the human mind, to the English words "teeny-weeny" and "itsy-bitsy", and a rationale for why these words describe smallness, the "slenderness" of the vowels within them producing a feeling of spareness within the mind's eye. Could one possibly concieve of "itsy-bitsy" as referring to the grandiosity of a thing? In like manner, there is a rationale for why the Old Irish word mor describes bigness/largeness/greatness, with it's "thick" vowelization, and so this word can be said to have a subjectively discerned essence, itself. I wouldcontend that words which have an onomatopoeic quality, do so because they have a subjective essence. If you look carefully, you will notice that there is far more onomatopoeia in the word stock of language s than you might initially surmise. — Michael Zwingli

Indeed, this is what makes mathematics so beautiful. It can create arguments without the intrusion of linguistic uncertainty to cloud meaning, or otherwise bollocks things up. — Michael Zwingli

He was legit. — hanaH

What's "...consciousness that isn't conscious of anything[?]" If your conscious, then being aware (in some way) is a necessary feature of consciousness. Maybe you're thinking of someone who is in a coma (or something similar), so their unconscious, or their not aware of anything. Sometimes people who we think aren't aware, are indeed aware, as has happened in some cases. Even if a person is in a coma and not "doing anything" that's much different from a person who doesn't exist, whatever "doesn't exist" means in this context (I assume you mean dead.). — Sam26

A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason. — J. P. Morgan

But that does not mean enjoying an ice cream or other superficial pleasures. When Thomas Jefferson wrote of the pursuit of happiness he was working with Aristotle's understanding of it and it meant the goal of human thought, an enriched life following the pursuit of knowledge. Not a wild weekend of binge drinking or getting a new car. — Athena

It is not necessary that you leave the house. Remain at your table and listen. Do not even listen, only wait. Do not even wait, be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other, in ecstasy it will writhe at your feet. — T Clark

1. Nothing exists;

2. Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it;

3. Even if something can be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others.

4. Even if it can be communicated, it cannot be understood — Gorgias

They are men without a mathematical equivalent somewhere because their mathematical equivalent doesn't exist — GraveItty

This question is exactly the reason I argued like I did and I answered it already. If a physical form (the drawn or imagined line) can't be expressed as a math formula, there is no counterpart of the form in the math space. — GraveItty

The place of math is simply the mind — GraveItty

Do you have Swiss consciousness? Somehow your name sounds Swiss. Like meusli. — Thunderballs

there's a great deal of disagreement about what he means — Daemon

Now, I always say context is important. Wittgenstein believed so too. — Hermeticus

There's a bit more to Wittgenstein than recognizing the arbitrariness of the sign. — Srap Tasmaner

My point is that forms in the mathematical realm owe their existence to the physical reality. — GraveItty

It is their mathematical formulation and their abstraction in the mathematical realm (a mathematical sphere is a different sphere as a physical one) that they don't possess. — GraveItty

Only an approximation. — GraveItty

Don't take derivation litterally, as if physical structures posses mathematical structures — GraveItty

Nothing personal, I just don't want to keep repeating myself. — Sam26

I'm not going to argue about this issue. It's been argued about a millions times in this forum. — Sam26

I agree, language can be friend or foe depending on your understanding of how language works. I don't think that language is used to give us mental pictures to allow us to understand reality. I'm not saying we don't get mental pictures, but this isn't something we should rely on to understand reality. Who's mental picture is correct? In many ways it's correct to say that propositions picture reality, or mirror reality, but this isn't the same as a mental picture — Sam26

You're close to falling into the hole of words equating to mental objects. — Sam26

I said you have to be a bit more precise, not exact. In language, sometimes a blurry image is just what we need. — Sam26

However, in this case, if you're correct that meaning equates to use, then any use of a word in any context would necessitate its meaning, and this isn't true. — Sam26

Language is the main tool of philosophy, it's where philosophy lives and breathes. Why would you suppose that all hope is lost if this is the case? — Sam26

Obviously invented and projected upon physical reality. It's reasonable that math is effective. Math is derived from structures in the physical world. — GraveItty

Meaning is not use. You have to be a bit more precise. — Sam26

And, why would you wonder if we could do philosophy without language. Of course we couldn't. It would be like asking if trains could pull themselves without the locomotive. — Sam26

Human activities have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, amplifying Earth's natural greenhouse effect. — www.climate.gov

Hypercapnia may happen in the context of an underlying health condition, and symptoms may relate to this condition or directly to the hypercapnia. Specific symptoms attributable to early hypercapnia are dyspnea (breathlessness), headache, confusion and lethargy. — Wikipedia

Indeed, if a sociopath asks why they should be moral other than consequences, there is no true answer. And if we're trying to decide which moral theory is true, there is no answer. — Marchesk