Comments

  • Some remarks on Wittgenstein's private language argument (PLA)
    1. The referent of S is known only to you. So, no possibility that you might inform a second person of what S means. There goes your chance of being able to establish a corroborative backup in case you ever forget what S means.
    — TheMadFool

    This is not an issue because the possibility of informing a second person of what S means is highly unlikely in the first place. "S" refers to one's own sensation, a feeling that a person has. How do you propose that you can show another person your own feeling, to inform that other person what S means? The idea that you might inform another person of what S means has no place here. So this is just a bad premise.     — Metaphysician Undercover

    :ok: We're on the same page. I wanted to make sure.

    2. Suppose now you doubt what S means. You and you alone can clear this doubt (from 1) but you can't because you're in doubt. You can't expect a person, viz. yourself, who's uncertain what S means to tell you what S means.
    — TheMadFool

    As I said, you can never completely rid yourself of this type of doubt, to be absolutely certain, but this does not prevent us from proceeding. In other words, it's impossible to clear this doubt, and that's just a fact of life, accept it.     — Metaphysician Undercover

    The issue is not about the doubt itself but how we might address that doubt.

    What does it mean to use S correctly? Well, it means to never get its meaning wrong but from 1 and 2 (above), this is impossible. If you ever doubt what S means, you're in thick soup - only you know what S means but now you don't. What happens next is incorrect use of S unless you're grotesquely lucky and all of your guesses are correct.
    — TheMadFool

    Right, it's impossible to ever know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the correct use of a word. But contrary to what you are saying here, this does not entail that "incorrect use" is inevitable. It just implies that there is no such thing as the correct use of a word. Once you come to understand this, and accept it as a fact, your doubt will be quelled because you will no longer be inclined to doubt whether or not your usage is correct. You will see that you are free to use words however you please.     — Metaphysician Undercover

    I don't think this is what Wittgenstein wants to convey. There is such a thing as correct usage of words. How else is this conversation taking place and how are we to read Wittgenstein's works if there were no such thing? :chin:
  • The definition of art
    How is this relevant to a definition of art? Can you produce an art work that is not captured by my definition? — Pop

    1. Your definition is fantastic. It so happens that art as a window to the artist's mind isn't a new idea at all - many people have already made a mention of it in their writings - but what is novel, pleasantly surprising in my humble opinion, is for someone (you) to take this rather old intuition about art and turn it into something much more interesting - the very meaning of art itself. It's as if you want to tell all the art experts out there that the meaning/essence of art was there right under their noses and they couldn't see it. Kudos to you.

    2. However, could there be a good reason why the experts didn't consider your definition as good enough to encompass all that art is? As I said, your notion of what art is - information on the mind of artists - is old news in the art world.
  • The definition of art
    ↪Pop
    All I'm saying is this: There are many aspects of nature, where consciousness is not involved, that instill the same emotions as when viewing a human art piece. That seems to undermine your definition of art as all to do with the mind unless, of course, you also believe in god, the creator whose handiwork the universe is.

    Also, in your attempt to find an essence, a leit-motif, to art, could you have immeserated rather than enriched the subject? Sometimes, it's better to not know than know.
  • Abortion and the ethics of lockdowns
    The vulnerability to illness that some have is not your doing either, which is what makes the analogy work. — AJJ

    That's condoning and even sanctioning killing, some might take that as murder.

    That's why I asked us to imagine that pregnancies could be caught, just as one can catch a virus. Does that change anything? Would our reason now tell us that women ought to lockthemselves down or else accept that they must endure the inconvenience and pain of childbirth? — Bartricks

    Doesn't that invalidate the analogical argument you're trying to make. As far as I can tell, you're trying to say pregnancy/abortion is similar to COVID-19/anti-lockdowns and if abortion is permitted, the anti-lockdown sentiment should be too.

    The first step you take is use Judith Jarvis Thomson's violin thought experiment to justify abortion. This has its own issues, a hint of which you get from you having to use rape-pregnancy but set that aside for the moment.

    Assume for now that abortion is justified. Are people then also warranted to defy lockdown protocols? Abortion ok implies you aren't obligated to keep someone (the fetus) alive. So, why should you have a duty to ensure the safety of others in re COVID-19?

    It bears mentioning here that one person's freedom trumps any resposibility towards the safety of another person is the core message.

    So far so good.

    The crucial difference between the two situations is this: In abortion you're simply unwilling to participate in an arrangement in which someone's life depends on you but in rejecting lockdown protocols, you're directly causing deaths by becoming part of the infection chain. The difference, I must say, is very subtle and explains why you think your argument is a good one.

    A thought experiment of my own:
    Abortion
    Imagine if you're told to help a dying person by donating one of your kidneys (everyone has two). You can refuse.

    COVID-19 anti-lockdowner
    Imagine now that you're asked to stay away from another person because your presence will be such a shock that it'll give this person a fatal heart attack. Can/will you refuse?
  • You are not your body!
    You may not know who you are, that's OK, but I I am very certain that there is someone out there with whom I am conversing. That's where my "you" refers to. — Alkis Piskas

    Who/what is this someone you're conversing with?

    I maybe off the mark but here's the deal.

    Just like you think there's someone you're conversing with, I too am under the impression that there's a someone I refer to with the pronoun "I".

    What could this "I" be? That, my friend, is the critical question.

    Since, from our discussions on how we use the word "my" it seems, at the end of the day, we're very uncertain as to what the "I" is.

    Let's be systematic.

    I could be,
    1. The body (includes the brain).
    2. The mind, the consciousness.
    3. A soul.
    Last but not the least,
    4. Practically anything.

    However, at the risk of repeating myself, we say things like,
    5. My body (you mentioned this)
    6. My mind
    7. My soul

    Therefore, the "I" can't be the body or the mind or the soul. Have I left anything out? Doesn't look like I have.

    Option 4 above is just there to ensure we've exhausted all possibilities - clearly ( :chin: ), I'm not my pet dog, or my neighbor's cat, or my neighbor, or the stone in your garden (I'm sure you live in a pretty house), or the mountain I see when I look out the window, you get the idea.

    In essence, we've, like Cantor did with infinities, checked each and every thing the "I" could refer to and, luckily or not, none are a match.

    The "I" is an illusion! It doesn't refer to anything at all. Thus, the someone that's chatting with you is ???


    Oh, I see. Well, I have made it so clear that even a child could undestand it. (Please don't get offended by that. I always try to explain things in the most simple manner and with the simplest words, so that even a child can undestand. — Alkis Piskas

    Your account of the matter/issue ignores the simplicity and glosses over the complexity that inheres therein.
  • If you could ask god one question what would it be?
    Im sorry... Another compliment! Your question popped up while reading this. Was it God? Anyhow, best question so far! — VerdammtNochMal

    Go away :smile:
  • Abortion and the ethics of lockdowns
    ↪Bartricks
    Good post.

    I'll keep this short and sweet.

    Unfrotunately or not, the violinist's sad condition is not my doing just like a woman who conceives from rape is not responsible for her pregnancy.

    With COVID-19, you are responsible for transmitting the infection to others.
  • If you could ask god one question what would it be?
    God, is it over?
  • The definition of art
    I know. But still! Great words! Truly. Ohoh, another compliment... :smile:

    I get to know you better each day. By words only!     — VerdammtNochMal

    :ok: If that's what floats your boat, by all means, be my guest.
  • You are not your body!
    Hi! This is a pleonasm, since "vide" means see! :smile: (Trivial comment of course ...) — Alkis Piskas

    I'm experiencing some memory issues.

    How is "I'm not the body" implied from "My body such and such"?
    In fact, people "My body such and such" and they believe or claim that "I'm the body". This is what this topic has shown, since most people in here believe they are bodies.     — Alkis Piskas

    My cat breathes. My body breathes. I breathe. Notice the difference and the similarity? When you use "my" you are not the same as that which is yours.

    Maybe as a concept, and depending on how you define it. But never as YOU, yourself, the person, the identity, the living unit, the human being. YOU, TheMadFool, with whom I have this exchange. And YOU are not empty!

    This is why I say that people are lost in concepts instead of seeing the obvious, using simple logic. They seem to trust concepts more than what they themselves can experience directly. This is really sad.     — Alkis Piskas

    You're begging the question. How can you say you're conversing with me when I made it clear to you I don't know who me is? :chin:

    This topic was simply about YOU, not the "self" as described in psychology and by the various philosophers through the ages. — Alkis Piskas

    What's the difference? Sorry about the previous remark.

    No. I'm between my brain and the physical brain. I am my body. I...AM...IN...BETWEEN. I let the the two (inner world and outer world) play and play along. A part of me is autonomous, luckily. The brain radiates into me (long dendrites) and the physical world has a grip too. Luckily. So who thinks? Not I! — VerdammtNochMal

    Good luck!
  • You are not your body!
    In the body there is a lot to rub. What if I say that I am my body and I am in the middle of brain and physical world? The brain thinks for me. I dont think at all... — VerdammtNochMal

    So, are you, are you in the middle of your brain, are you the body? If you are, you are. Nothing to discuss but I was mainly interested in how people answer, tend to that is, "no" to such questions.
  • The definition of art
    I have to say that once in a while you say sensible things! :ok: — VerdammtNochMal

    I wasn't fishing for compliments but thanks.
  • You are not your body!
    If you consider yourself the body (I know, too much to bear for some...) than points 2-4 disappear as snow for the fucking sun. The brainless body, that is. — VerdammtNochMal

    We've crossed that bridge. People, especially if they're careless, say things like, "I have a body" implying they don't identify with their bodies. Therein lies the rub.
  • The definition of art
    So, @Pop, art is basically a window to the artist's mind. I've heard people say the same thing though not exactly in the same words as yours, nor do I recall anyone making this particular aspect of art the cornerstone of the subject, definitionally speaking. The way everyone seems to have treated this facet of art as trivial, unimportant, accidental suggests that even non-art fits this description.

    It's possible that what you're really saying is anything to do with the human mind is art; after all, everything we think/speak/do provides a glimpse of our consciousness. If so, what's unrelated to consciousness is not art. How do you explain the warm, fuzzy feelings one gets when watching a sunset, the sky ablaze yellow, red, orange? A sunset isn't a human artefact ergo, not linked to consciousness at all and yet we're moved by it as much as we would be looking at the Mona Lisa.
  • You are not your body!
    If you are a body, then why do you say 'my body', 'I have a body', and so on? — Alkis Piskas

    This approach to the issue resonates with me for I feel it leads to a deeper insight about the self. Others have jumped on the bandwagon as well. See vide infra:

    If you are a mind or a soul, then why do you say 'my mind or my soul', 'I have a mind or I have a soul', and so on?" — praxis

    Let's continue. People say,
    1. My body such and such.
    2. My mind such and such.
    3. My brain such and such.
    4. My soul such and such.
    .
    .
    .

    What they mean, what's implied,

    1. I'm not the body.
    2. I'm not the mind.
    3. I'm not the brain.
    4. I'm not the soul.
    .
    .
    .

    So, what is this I, the so-called self? All that could be the self appears in a list as above and yet, we ourselves, deny every item on that list to be the self, the I.

    It's like someone giving you a bag of things and saying there's a flse in it. You proceed to take objects out of the bag one at a time, each time asking, "is this flse?" Everytime the reply is "no". After a while, the bag is empty and flse still hasn't been found.

    Is the self an empty word? It seems like it for every possible referent we could think of is not the self. Forget about the self being what the self can't be - other people, trees, animals, etc. - the self can't be what the self can be - the body, the mind, the brain, the soul, thoughts, etc.

    Is the self an illusion?

    OR, more intriguingly,

    Is the self a thing that transcends this our reality - its referent, what it is, resides in a realm beyond the one we know? It's not that the self, the I doesn't refer to something, it's just that this something is not of this world.
  • Is velocity a true physical quantity?
    That's exactly what my question is about. Can you remember that jewish guy in English parlament smashing his wristwatch? — Philofile

    Perhaps he was onto something.

    Men talk of killing time, while time quietly kills them. — Dion Boucicault

    :grin:

    Jokes aside, timelessness is not something I have the wherewithal to tackle at the moment. I tried turning it over in my mind and I must admit I can't even parse the claim that time is an illusion. What does that even mean?
  • Some remarks on Wittgenstein's private language argument (PLA)
    Some words, like "water", we are very sure about, other words, we are less sure about. It's generally a matter of being familiar with the word and its use. Why would "S" be any different? The use here, which one would become familiar with, is one's own use. But I don't see how the judgement of "correct" would be any different in principle. In the one case consistent with the use of others would be the criteria for the judgement, and in the other case consistent with one's own use would be the criteria — Metaphysician Undercover

    The problem is two-fold. Suppose you're the provate linguist.

    1. The referent of S is known only to you. So, no possibility that you might inform a second person of what S means. There goes your chance of being able to establish a corroborative backup in case you ever forget what S means.

    2. Suppose now you doubt what S means. You and you alone can clear this doubt (from 1) but you can't because you're in doubt. You can't expect a person, viz. yourself, who's uncertain what S means to tell you what S means.

    What does it mean to use S correctly? Well, it means to never get its meaning wrong but from 1 and 2 (above), this is impossible. If you ever doubt what S means, you're in thick soup - only you know what S means but now you don't. What happens next is incorrect use of S unless you're grotesquely lucky and all of your guesses are correct.

    No, I mean in any use of language one does not have to be certain of what the words mean. That's just the way language is. It's that type of thing, something we can do, without being certain of what we are doing. There is no fatal consequence, for example, for making a mistake, so we can proceed rather carelessly — Metaphysician Undercover

    The private language argument's primary goal is to demonstrate that language is a social entity. How language operates in a group - meaning is use - is an altogether different story. Suffice it to say that a public language has standards that determine correct/incorrect usage of words that's free of circularity.

    That's what I think anyway. I'm not as certain about my reading of Wittgenstein as I'd like to be.
  • What are you chasing after with philosophy?
    Have you ever noticed how sad so many happy people are? — Tom Storm

    Sorry, I was too sad to notice.
  • What are you chasing after with philosophy?
    No. History/politics, natural sciences & the arts, not philosophy, are truth-pursuits.

    After a more complete understanding of Reality?
    No. The real (sublimely) surpasses, or exhausts, understanding.

    After happiness?
    No. 'Pursuing happiness' is like trying to hold on to smoke or chasing rainbows.

    Would you agree then with the assessment that the search for Truth, for a more complete understanding of Reality, for happiness, are all connected?
    No.

    And that deep down this is why you do philosophy?
    N/A.     — 180 Proof

    :fire: Keep it coming!
  • What are you chasing after with philosophy?
    I like the blue pill better. The color of my last mushrooms I took. Spaghetti vision... — Philofile

    Red Pill And Blue Pill

    The terms "red pill" and "blue pill" refer to a choice between the willingness to learn a potentially unsettling or life-changing truth by taking the red pill or remaining in contented ignorance with the blue pill. The terms refer to a scene in the 1999 film The Matrix. — Wikipedia

    The bitter truth!

    And you say I'm cynical.
  • Is velocity a true physical quantity?
    By moving. But at no point you had a velocity. That's defined by us. Compare it with physics without time... — Philofile

    But time is consumed in the journey. My watch and my calender says so.

    Also, explain this: a person X and Y are racing each other in a 100 m dash. X wins the race i.e. X and Y can be ordered in a sequence, X first, Y second. This ordering is not spatial, both ran 100 m. In what sense can you say that X is first and Y second? Time! Velocity then is a true physical quantity.
  • What are you chasing after with philosophy?
    Fatalist — Philofile

    Mea culpa. Sorry if you don't like the attitude. I can't help it. :grin:

    Red or blue — Philofile

    Stalin Or Hitler. Not much of a choice you're offering.
  • Is velocity a true physical quantity?
    I'm moving in a car (I have a velocity). I move (in my car) from New York to San Francisco. If I weren't moving (had a velocity) at all points between New York and San Francisco, how the hell did I reach San Francisco? :chin:
  • What are you chasing after with philosophy?
    Then do it yourself. Fuck mr. Life! — Philofile

    There's nothing I can do! In fact, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Don't you get it?



    [...]Down here I make the rules, down here I make the threats,...[PUNCH]..., down here I'm God. — The Train Man
  • What are you chasing after with philosophy?
    Truth is that, as you're programmed to believe, and you know you are, mankind has elevated himself slowly but surely from ridiculous purposeless cave beings beating each over the head, living in blood and other undesirable substances, to creatures of intellect with purpose, jobs, joy, emotion, arts, innovation, discovery, the whole universe is now at our fingertips. You call this an ugly truth? Sure, entropy and negentropy are very real concepts. This world and presumably the universe and all things in it are slowly becoming disorganized, chaotic, coming to a stop, a halt, universally they call it a heat death I believe is the prevailing theory, but just look at what was accomplished. Have we, at the absolute very least, had a good run? — Outlander




  • What are you chasing after with philosophy?
    I think you should contact him. — Philofile

    I did and Mr. Life said he can't do anything about it.
  • What are you chasing after with philosophy?
    The same cynism... I'll nibble somewhere else... — Philofile

    If you have any complaints, please contact: The Manager, Mr. Life
  • What are you chasing after with philosophy?
    That's a dark cynical thought. The whole universe is a cage like that — Philofile

    A something to nibble on: Why do lies exist? Yes, many reasons there may be but one possibility can't be ruled out - truth is bitter and we tell ourselves fantastical tales to keep us from learning the ugly truth.
  • What is depth?
    The closest concept I can get my hands on that has depth built into it is,

    The two truths doctrine states that there is:

    1. Provisional or conventional truth (Sanskrit saṁvṛti-satya, Pāli sammuti sacca, Tibetan kun-rdzob bden-pa), which describes our daily experience of a concrete world, and

    2.,Ultimate truth (Sanskrit, paramārtha-satya, Pāli paramattha sacca, Tibetan: don-dam bden-pa), which describes the ultimate reality as sunyata, empty of concrete and inherent characteristics.     — Wikipedia

    Any statement/problem/isssue/question/whathaveyou that gives you a glimpse of, takes you closer to, paramārtha-satya/ultimate truth could be thought of as deep or said of as possessing depth.

    The experience of depth (of anything) is very common in neophytes. They're, in a sense, both blessed and cursed - blessed for the reason that their very basic understanding of things provides them with many opportunities to experience the ecstasy that accompanies encounters with profundity and cursed because these orgiastic aha moments don't correlate all that well with true depth. A beginner in piano might feel elated at being able to play happy birthday with only a few mistakes but a professional pianist's exacting standards means fae feels the same only with a flawless performance of a Beethoven/Bach piece; though the two compositions are radically different in what we may view as depth, the emotional intensity is the same, beginner or virtuoso.
  • Consequentialism
    Killing (a person), consequentialism vs deontological ethics:

    1. All killings are bad. [deontological ethics]

    2. Some killings are not bad [consequentialism]

    The two theories contradict each other. I never knew!

    The question that might provide some insight into the matter:

    Ask both a consequentialist and a deontoligical ethicist,

    3. Killing, raping, lying, cheating, etc. What would you prefer, that you,

    a) never would have to do them

    OR

    b) sometimes would have to do them

    ?

    I think deontological ethics wins hands down. Right? :chin:
  • What are you chasing after with philosophy?
    getting closer to Truth. — leo

    There really is no difference, qualitatively speaking of course, between two men lost in the desert, one a 100 miles and the other a 100 yards away from the nearest oasis - each is as thirsty and dehydrated as the other. So close and yet so far!

    It sets you FREE! — Newkomer

    I thought the idea was to exchange an ordinary cage for a gilded cage or to arrange to be transferred from a small cell to a larger cell, with a view of the courtyard if possible, a cell nonetheless.

    [...] Who was responsible? Neither kings, nor priests, nor merchants. the culprits were a handful of plant species, including wheat, rice and potatoes. These plants domesticated homo sapiens, rather than vice versa. — Yuval Noah Harari (book Sapiens, speaking on the Agricultural Revolution and the domestication of certain plant species)

    Are we chasing philosophy or is philosophy chasing us?
  • Against Stupidity
    Food for thought:

    I recall reading in a book on critical thinking that one has to be logical, in other words, one mustn't be stupid if you want to, the book says, live a long, happy, healthy and meaningful life.

    Needless to say there are stupids in our ranks, I myself among them probably.

    Come now to the theory of evolution as per which life's a game of survival, survival of the fittest, fit in evolutionary terms means an ability to reproduce.

    Thus, it seems, from all of the above, stupidity gives you some kind of reproductive advantage over intelligence. That, of course raises the possibility that insofar as life, in a broad sense, is concerned, it actually doesn't mind having a sizeable population of dimwits around.

    Compare and contrast that to intelligence and its stereotypes such as nerds/geeks (peeps with high IQ but zero sex appeal).

    You do the math!

    Mother Nature knows best!?

    @180 Proof, what say you?
  • Some remarks on Wittgenstein's private language argument (PLA)
    You seem to be using the premise that one must be absolutely certain before judging something as correct. But that's really opposite to reality. There are degrees of certainty, but we never obtain to the level of absolute. Nor do we require absolute certainty before proceeding with an action. So fae can use a sign, and we can interpret this as meaning that fae has in some sense judged it as being correct for the situation, even while maintaining doubt as to whether it truly is the best sign for the situation — Metaphysician Undercover

    Fair point but, from what I gather, the certainty Wittgenstein is concerned about regarding whether or not the sign "S" is being used correctly applied can be treated in a relative sense. We aren't as sure of the sign "S" and its referent as we are about the referent of "water", the former being private and the latter being public. Therein lies the rub.

    The person using the sign doesn't need to be certain — Metaphysician Undercover

    You mean to say, a private linguist doesn't need to be certain what a sign S refers to in faer private, inner world? So, S is like a variable and can stand for any sensation, this particular category of experience being chosen by Wittgenstein out of necessity? What S stands for can change at any time; a private linguist might, for instance, say, "oh, this feels right for S" and run with that. That's exactly what Wittgenstein claimed will happen - the notion of whether a word is being used appropriately/properly is N/A. What do you think this leads to? I'm curious.

    I wish @Banno would chime in, he's a Wittgenstein zealot! :grin:
  • The Decay of Science
    How you wanna measure velocity at one time? — Newkomer

    Sorry, couldn't parse that.
  • The Decay of Science
    Both can be measured at the same time. All properties can be measured at the same time. — TenderBar

    Yes, if all parties are ok with it, have a threesome.. I reckon it's at this point the analogy breaks down. :grin:
  • Against Stupidity
    Trump being King of Stupid. — Wayfarer

    :grin:
  • Against Stupidity
    Stand corrected but the basic point remains. — Wayfarer

    Indeed!
  • Against Stupidity
    Why did people make such fateful miscalculations? For the same reason people throughout history have miscalculated. People were unable to fathom the full consequences of their decisions. — Yuval Noah Harari (Sapiens), explaining why humanity is a scourge for the earth
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    :flower:
  • Against Stupidity
    There ought to be another law about "Godwin"... — Wheatley

    As an online discussion grows in the number of Hitler references, the probability of mentioning Godwin's law approaches 1? — Hermeticus

    :lol:
Home » TheMadFool