That is, do you also agree with:
What the blind cannot do re color words is know what they are talking about.
— hypericin — Banno

The blind can know how to use the word, that color is often a property of objects, for instance. They also know that they don't know what it is in the sense of being able to see it.

Ok. It might help if you stated what you think he is claiming. — Banno

I think he's claiming that you can't teach someone what red is. You can only point to it. If they have the anatomy and physiology that allows them to have that experience, you can help them attach the word "red" to it.

Plus there's a Meno's paradox situation here. All speech ever does is point, and then we hope they got it.

the experience of color cannot be communicated.
— hypericin

Yeah, it can. The cup is red. — Banno

Listing properties communicates experience? Only if speaker and listener have common ground. Hypericin is correct wrt congenitally blind listeners.

That's just the way it is.

frank

Ah, but I wasn't summoned, you see. That would require evocation by use of a name, as one would the Lord of the Flies, i.e. Beelzebub, the chief follower of Satan/Lucifer in Milton's Paradise Lost. — Ciceronianus

Is it e-voke or in-voke? I don't want to get it wrong and blow up the high school.

which is exactly what we were discussing before your mindless interjection. — Isaac

I think you're kind of over doing it tho. Back to USD's and GBP's.

Just restating it doesn't make it true. If I dropped a nuclear bomb on your neighborhood because I was justifiably concerned you were going to kill me, people would definitely condemn my actions. The collateral damage my actions resulted in would be out out of proportion to the harm I was trying to avoid. — Isaac

True. Shooting me in the head would be legal though.

the execrable must be summoned. — Ciceronianus

And here you are!

Ineffable: a useless euphemism intended to obfuscate the fact it is impossible to conceive anything too great to be talked about. — Mww

I don't think it's usually about greatness. "The ineffable aroma of the autumn wind...". It's just that words are sometimes like fingers and some of experience falls through the open hands of language.

Haven't you ever had dreams that couldn't be adequately put into words? I have. Interestingly, years later, all I remember are the metaphors I came up with to explain it: it was like a bee hive and I could feel each bee. I know that's not what the dream really was.

Maybe memory is a factor here. It's hard to remember what you couldn't put into words

"Only one Republican senator has announced publicly that he will support former-President Trump’s 2024 reelection bid, a sign of the uphill battle Trump faces in his quest to win the Republican presidential nomination and a second term in the White House.". -The Hill

wow! times have changed!

... Also, I don't have spy satellites, — boethius

I don't think your country has any satellites, do they?

Even if I thought it was reasonable for Zelensky to manipulate me for his own benefit .. — boethius

If you had spy satellites, you probably wouldn't feel manipulated.

I think you're following Isaac in doing your best not to understand that when you act to preserve your life in the face of a lethal threat, your actions can't be condemned, even if your actions result in the death of your attacker.

I suppose some would chose to die instead. I don't understand it, but I acknowledge it.

frank

Good. Glad we got that one sorted. Perhaps put a little thought into your posts next time before reeling off meaningless knee-jerk platitudes. — Isaac

I think you're just procrastinating instead of studying how to trade on the currency market.

Of course it can. If I feel that you're threatening my life, I'm not thereby justified in dropping a nuclear bomb on your house. The collateral damage would be out of proportion to the harm mitigated.

It's absurd to suggest that self-defense somehow morally justifies any response no matter what. — Isaac

Uh huh.

Zelensky probably will use everything at his disposal to secure his goals. Since it's a matter of self-preservation, it can't be condemned. We'll all do what we have to do to survive, and for many, that extends to the political entities we're parts of.

The posing is inherently an opposing, a contrast and comparison with the substrate it grows out of — Joshs

If you want to start with Becoming, then substrate and emergent meaning are polar aspects of what is. They don't sit there waiting to do their jobs. So the posing has nothing to oppose until we equip it with that. There is no "one" to talk to itself other than the figments of reflection on what passes in unity.

Holy hatred? :grin:

Why not start from the idea that talking to ourselves is already talking to an other, that the self does not coincide with itself? This will avoid the Cartesian trap of solipsism. — Joshs

I figured you'd go with: speech happens (somewhere in the motor cortex?) and when we reflect on this, we frame it as a conversation with a speaker and a listener. Posing and opposing things gives things meaning, right?

The only thing that should be done are things which are good. Good things should be done. — Leftist

In the OP you were going by moral nihilism (there are no true moral claims). Now you're defining good as what should be done. @Metaphysician Undercover, isn't that Aristotelian?

Aristotle also spoke of necessary evils, like slavery. You could argue that torture is sometimes a necessary evil (although the CIA disagrees), but that just means it's both good and bad.

Whoever our interlocutor is, just by virtue of being a fellow conversationalist -- well, if we spoke for them, they'd no longer be in the conversation. — Moliere

You're saying that it's built into the concept of communication that our utterances must be distinct.

And yet we can express the same proposition.

As many as theorized, there's a good possibility Russia has reached its strategic goals (land access to Crimea) and if that is the case, they are likely looking to end the conflict sooner rather than later. Giving up Kherson may very well be the price. — Tzeentch

They were obviously trying to take Kiev, and we now know that Putin was trying to stamp out the Ukrainian identity in Kherson. Putin is without a doubt, the scum of the earth. He's a turd on top of a mountain of slimy poop. He's... well, I'm sure you agree. He sucks.

Folk suppose that since there are things that are done rather than said, there must be something that is unsayable. — Banno

It could be that saying is also a thing that is done, as when you point to the gavagai.

Maybe nothing is ever specified. There are no references, so the OP presents a false dilemma.

But then what's the meaning of what I just said? What use is it supposed to have? Nah, we do specify and refer.

I think the bias against the ineffable jives with my theory about what propositions are: that they're what we take as the world's voice, it's what the world answers in response to our questions. Is the world partially mute? If so, why?

Perhaps giving up Kherson, the potential springboard for future offensive operations towards Odessa, was a prerequisite to starting those negotiations. — Tzeentch

You've got Zelensky negotiating from a position of power.

Giving up ground for free with loud announcement is not a typical military action, regardless of what position these troops found themselves in, which is why it is likely the town was abandoned under loud announcement for other reasons - a deal potentially, which is given some credit due to Zelensky talking about "the end of the war" shortly after the retreat from Kherson, — Tzeentch

It's just far fetched that the Russians would divest themselves of their assets prior to official negotiations.

I hope you'll agree that a complete collapse of the Russian lines is not in the cards any time soon, so why would he be saying this, if there wasn't some deal made? — Tzeentch

I don't know.

cannot imagine that Russia would give up Kherson freely, — Tzeentch

They didn't. They were forced to give it up.

Agreed. I just tried to have him express his opinion clearly. He's too much of a chicken for that, apparently. — Olivier5

None of the Russophiles want to come out and say it. I'm not sure why.

Well, you just lost an excellent occasion to clarify your position. — Olivier5

I think his position is pretty clear. He's saddened that Russia is struggling right now. *shrug*

I say this to make Democrats sad, by telling them that the reason they won the mid-terms is because the Republicans don't care because they didn't matter. They already won something much bigger. — Hanover

Congress still makes the laws, though

What point?

There are those who are obviously emotionally invested in the idea of a powerful Russia, as a force of nature. Insinuations that it's just a kleptocratic regional power are taken as hostile language.

I think I understand that.

I'm guessing the Taiwan situation plays a role. — jorndoe

I don't know. I think the US and China are more economically integrated than the US and Russia were. There are good reasons on both sides for peaceful negotiations about Taiwan.

Such a statement is meaningless, because Russia isn't seriously considering the use of nuclear weapons yet. If, after further escalation / mobilization by Russia NATO chooses to intervene with boots on the ground, nuclear weapons use will definitely be on the table, and what China thinks of it won't play a role anymore at that point. — Tzeentch

I believe you're misdiagnosing the situation.

But as suggested to Frank, that just means that it is not something to be said, but something to be done. It's not a something that remains unsaid! — Banno

:up:

Russia is escalating this war however much it needs, and will continue to do so up until the point of nuclear war. — Tzeentch

Xi nixed the nuclear option.

But can one put into words how one rides a bike or play guitar? Tacit knowledge is a candidate for the ineffable. — Banno

Even if we could, that wouldn't convey to the naive how to ride or play. Some things you have to learn on your own.

:up:

The one apparently advocated by Wittgenstein was to simply remain silent about the ineffable — Banno

Was it? Or was he warning that language is sometimes misused?

Was there an argument that shows that speech never falls short of expressing what we know?

Those other articles aren't paywalled, you should be able to see them. — Manuel

But weren't they about Poland?

I don't have a wsj subscription. :sad:

There were two articles about Poland?

What I heard was that the US would sends troops along with other NATO member countries to fight inside Ukraine, if Russia proceeds with the expected escalation coming winter — Manuel

Where did you hear this?