I wonder if you have closely read any one or more of the following of Witty's writings:

• Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
• Philosophical Investigations
• On Certainty
• Culture and Value
• Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics

Many of your questions and criticisms of Witty seem derivative of secondary and tertiary mis/readings of (fragments from) the works listed here. — 180 Proof

I've been outed. :blush:

@Antony Nickles @Banno

By grammar, my hunch is, Wittgenstein is talking about the rules of a given language game. However none of the articles I read on Wittgenstein's theory gives any information on what that actually looks like? What's your take on this matter?

Another Wittgensteinian idea I haven't got a handle on is the so-called rule following paradox. I have a feeling it's relevant. If you have or anyone else reading this has any idea what this paradox is, kindly edify me. Thanks.

That's the problem with Krauss' theory of a "Universe From Nothing". His so-called "nothing" paradigm omits the metaphysical Bible-God, but retains such metaphysical "non-things" as Space-Time & Natural Laws & Quantum Fields. — Gnomon

For science, the nonphysical = nonexistence.
— TheMadFool

This premise is false. Physics deals with force and energy as well as matter, and these are non-physical, yet assumed by physicists to exist. Your statement would pertain truly to the "life sciences", though, but only if taken in isolation (meaning, I'm sure that Biologists and Chemists believe that force and energy exist, even though considerations thereof do not generally pertain to their work). — Michael Zwingli

You don't need a justification in order to conclude that you have a headache. it is not the end product of a process of ratiocination.

As if you could justify to us your claim to have a headache by producing for us your pain - as if the pain were not itself the headache.

The objection here is not that you do not have a pain - that, for you, is certain. It's that "I know I am in pain" is like "I know I have an iPhone". — Banno

If you're right people should be saying things like "I have a headache" or "I have a stomachache" even when they don't. After all, according to you, no reasoning is involved. People complain of pain because they are in pain.

True I can't demonstrate my pain to another but surely I must to myself. However, we have to be careful to distinguish between going through pain and knowing pain. The former is a direct kind of experience (you just have pain) but the latter which involves finding the right word for the experience requires reasoning (you know you have pain).

China now has hypersonic nuclear weapons and we do not have a good defense against them. — Athena

Iraq WMD $\rightarrow$Iraq War

Is there a pattern here or is it just me?

Where the universe = c,

The universe exists = $(\exists x)(Ux \wedge x = c)$

The universe does not exist = $(\forall x) \neg(Ux \wedge x = c)$

Where Ux = x is a universe,

C = A universe exists = $(\exists x)(Ux)$

~C = No universes exist = $(\forall x)(\neg Ux)$

He is not looking at language itself — Antony Nickles

@Wayfarer

This, I suspect, is your interpretation. From what I read from SEP, no one seems to have a handle on what Wittgenstein really meant to convey.

Here's my own thoughts on the linguistic turn:


Firstly,

Don't mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon. — Some Guy

Philosophy is not about "moon", it's about moon.

Secondly,

mayhaps there is no moon or possibly the moon is irrelevant.

That Wittgenstein's philosophy has something to do with philosophy of mind (private language) is telling. For some reason I think of idealism.

No. From personal experience. I have connections. :cool: — Caldwell

I see. Care to share your personal experience? What does it look like?

Well yes — Antony Nickles

Then it's no longer language language is it? This is one of my complaints against Wittgensteinization of philosophy. It seems to rely wholly or a lot on equiovaction. When I read the word "grammar" in Wittgenteinian philosophy I immediately think language but when I dig deeper it's got a technical meaning that has nothing to do with grammar in the linguistic sense. I fear the so-called linguistic turn, true to Wittgenstein's own pronouncements, is in name only.

No. — Caldwell

Stoicism? Buddhism? :chin:

IQ & EQ? The two are a complementary pair. With IQ you can build EQ. Sans EQ, your IQ is disabled.

So you've had a play with Wittgesntein's thinking here. What would he make of this, do you think?

Truth is about propositions; but perhaps there are two games, one mundane, in being "of this world", the other profound to the point of incomprehensibility.

What do you think now? — Banno

Wittgenstein? Why, he would've said this whole discussion is pointless if it depended on meaning as essence but, speaking for myself, he mistakes the finger pointing at the moon for the moon. Perhaps there's no moon and possibly the moon is totally irrelevant - drops out of consideration as it were. :chin:

To the extent my pain goes away with the same medication, my pain is the same as your pain (as it were, essentially--a grammatical claim on the sense of "sameness" as it relates to sensations). They are the same pain but in two separate bodies (as color can be the same on two separate objects)--this is the fundamental fact that makes expression and acceptance the grammar of sensations. — Antony Nickles

I guess so but I have a feeling the word "grammar" has a rather unconventional meaning in your post and Wittgenstein's writings if he ever uses it.

Is it all a 'wild goose chase'? Is it all a mixture of 'bad philosophy', and running round in circles literally, or on various threads about 'truth', the existence of God etc? There are many threads tackling the same issues, and they keep going on, which shows how tricky some of the areas of thought are. — Jack Cummins

I used to believe in the truth but, even though I never really got down to seeking it in earnest, I look around and listen to what others have to say - not very encouraging reports from those who did devote their lives to the search for the truth. Isn't it better then to not look for something that doesn't exist?

Probably not. But still it should have its own "way". — dimosthenis9

You have a point though. I completely forgot about the order that the universe evinces. Nevertheless, life can be taken as one long process of slow decay. The universe could be like that it - breaking down but ever so slowly, so slowly that we mistake it for order.

everything there "works" in such harmony — dimosthenis9

This is not as cut-and-dried as you might believe.

virtue is expensive and painful.
— unenlightened

Why do you think that is?
— TheMadFool

If virtue was fun and profitable, every arsehole would be virtuous — unenlightened

:rofl: And that's why, ladies and gentlemen, "virtue is expensive and painful."

Bad philosophy. Religious apologetics. "New Age" perennialists. Etcetera — 180 Proof

:ok: So some are still on this wild goose chase. Someone should tell 'em.

virtue is expensive and painful. — unenlightened

:up: Why do you think that is?

Shouldn't it have been the other way round? We make such a big fuss about morality - ethics of this, ethics of that - that what should've happened is all other areas of human interest and activity should've aligned themselves with it by now, it's been nearly 2.5k years and counting. Virtue should be cheap and joyful. Yet it is not! :chin:

Well, "the truth" is imaginary, thereby a denial (E.Becker) or distraction from (L. Feuerbach) the real: ineluctable ephemerality ... oblivion. Philosophy reminds us to 'make life significant' because of, not despite, the real (e.g. daoija, (early) buddhism, ... epicureanism, spinozism, absurdism). — 180 Proof

Yep, I'm beginning to have second thoughts about the truth. I no longer believe such a thing exists. Still the myth persists - I wonder why? Who's keeping the flame of this illusion of the truth burning? Starry-eyed adolescents? Older folks? Who, god damn it, who? It's a dangerous idea - the truth. Many lives will be, have been, wasted in search of a mirage.

Someone must've beaten me to it but I thought I might as well say it. Religion gets it right as to what we should all train our sights on - the truth. However, it slips up on how that's supposed to be done - revelation instead of reason, the latter being philosophy's choice for uncovering the truth

Nevertheless...the unconscious, I hear, does most of the thinking and we only get to see the finished product - the truth. Revelation!

Since we're now discussing God, I'm currently reading Yuval Noah Harari's book Sapiens and he writes that despite the claims, monotheism is a syncretic religion and borrows a page or two from polytheism (saints) and dualist religions like Zoroastrianism (the evil god Angra Manyu aka Satan).

Agree, but this doesn't answer martyrdom question. — SpaceDweller

Where did that come up?

Does it make sense to be willingly tortured in the name of morality?
Even after knowing the "secret knowledge". — SpaceDweller

It doesn't I guess but maybe that's the whole point! I dunno!

I don't think so, and this tells me there really is no secret knowledge or morality alone thereof that would be worth it. — SpaceDweller

I read in a paper quite a many years ago of a contract killing in a third-world country. The bounty: $66. If someone's willing to kill for $66...what are the possibilities?

I was assuming the philosophical analysis you describe above was behind us, territory already covered. Once we get past all that, when and if we do, the issue boils down to what I alluded to in my post - existential vs. universal quantification.

I'm grateful though for the reminder on how philosophy is actually done. It helps novices like me to stay on track. :up:

It's official, COP26, despite all the hype, was a complete washout! Really, who were we kidding?!

Morality, traditionally, doesn't make sense without free will. If one has free will, one can, as pertains to God, Adam, Eve, and the forbidden fruit, disobey. Morality consists of, going by religious and secular ethics, following rules of conduct.

The dilemma (for God) is this: Morality is about restricting our freedom - we can't go around doing anything and everything we want. However, morality is also about giving us our freedom - it's meaningless without being able to do anything and everything we want. Either we're free (can do whatever we want) or we're moral (can't do whatever we want) but not both.

Here is the deal. I present to you a red car.

The question: Why is this car red?

Answer that and I'll tell you why Z is not actual. — khaled

:lol: I have not time for your silly games khaled

My two cents.

Whatever something is, it is that. Then a meaning is attached to it. This is done in obvious and not-so-obvious ways. Consider this meaning to be its generic, intended, conventional meaning. On this, either through this or as an association, another meaning is given, meaning specific, peculiar to an individual. Thus, when one sees an apple, there's the apple, what the apple's intended meaning is and what apples mean to you, personally.

Yes. But it was anathematized presumably, not because un-scriptural, but because It allowed direct contact with God, and bypassed the Church as mediator & translator. Later, the Protestants likewise claimed the right to know the written word of God in vernacular language. And at the same time, gave license to empirical scientists to consult the creation of God directly, Again, making an end run around the Holy Mother Church, with its ancient authorized scriptures, and again violently resisted. From then on, Catholic Mystics (closet Gnostics) tried to fly under-the-radar of the Inquisition, so they could have it both ways : direct divine visions and church sacraments — Gnomon

Sadly, Wikipedia reports that almost all Ngostic texts were destroyed by the Church and its henchmen. I guess we'll never know how much wisdom or truth they did or did not contain with the former being more interesting and that much more painful to bear.

given 1) ~w
given 2) ∀(~w) ∃(r): r => ~w
assume r, therefore ~w
Not a giant step for logic.

Please give predicates for "actual," "possible," "necessary." No predicates, no precision; no precision, no proof — tim wood

Why? Sentential logic works fine.

Not necessarily. There could be some true statements we can't prove (incompleteness) — khaled

You're bending over backwards, going to great lengths as it were, to make a point. You have to prove incompleteness whatever that means in your case.

Here's the deal. I present to you a world Z that is not actual.

The question: Why is world Z not actual?

@Olivier5 @Srap Tasmaner

Witt would say, is that I do not "know" pain; I have it. — Antony Nickles

1. I'm experiencing this particularly unpleasant throbbing sensation in my head, H.

2. H is, from my interaction with others, an ache.

Ergo,

3. I have a headache.

Statement 3 is a proposition, which in this case, is justfiably true. Therefore, I know I have a headache.

To the three of you addressed above

Tylenol? Aspirin? Pain medication. They seem to work for everybody as if everybody's pain is the same. The beetle, in this case at least, each of us has in our private box is identical...or not?

Why not first disambiguate between formal and less formal construals of key terms such as ‘negative claim’ and ‘proof’? There are obviously many proofs which substantiate negative claims — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Good call but that's I was hoping other, more knowledgable, folks would do. What is, after all, a negative claim and what do we mean by proof?

To me, an affirmative claim is one that says how the world is and a negative claim is one about what the world is not. For example, "the sky is blue" states what the sky is and "the sky is not blue" what the sky is not.

A proof is a logical argument (inductive/deductive) that establishes the truth of a claim, positive/negative.

Let's look at some postive and negative claims and, what will be the cornerstone of my argument, their logical translations:

Gx = x is God

1. God exists: $(\exists x)(Gx)$


2. God does not exist: $(\forall x)(\neg Gx)$

God exists is an affirmative statement and is translated in logic with the existential quantifier ($\exists$) i.e. we only need one thing that is a god to prove it.

God does not exist, in logic, requires the universal quantifier ($\forall$) and to prove this statement we need to show how each and everything in the universe is not God.

It's easier to prove God exists than God does not exist or, negatively expressed, it's next to impossible to prove God does not exist. Hence, we can't prove a negative.

Can you have a look $\uparrow$.

Update

1. If world X is not actual then there's a proof why world X is not actual.

2. If there's a proof that world X is not actual then necessarily world X is not actual.

3. If necessarily world X is not actual then world X is impossible.

4. If world X is not actual then necessarily world X is not actual. (1, 2 HS)

5. If world X is not actual then world X is impossible. (3, 4 HS)

6. If world X is possible then world X is actual. (5 Contra)

:lol:

:up:

What's the problem? — Banno

1. World X is possible & World X is not actual (you would agree)

2. World X is impossible & World X is not actual (obvious)

I give you world Z which is not actual. That is to say,

3. World Z is not actual.

Question for you: Is world Z impossible or is world Z possible?

How would you be able to tell? — TheMadFool