you haven't even offered any argument for why you think meaning cannot be divorced from use, but just repeated claims that it's wrong, whatever that might mean. — Janus
You keep saying that the idea that meaning can be divorced from use is like believing in a flat Earth. — Janus
Husserl also criticized Descartes for relying on the language of subject and object, which he believed reinforced a dualistic view of the world. — Wayfarer
The self as subject of experience is never the object of cognition but that to whom they appear. — Wayfarer
it takes a social space for meaning to tango — Baden
This sounds like Paul. It claims that the Law and the laws of Kosher are not important. Jesus' disciples split with him over this. They reached a compromise in which Paul would go away and preach elsewhere. — Fooloso4
It serves them on both ends, paying students who become exploited as TA's and adjuncts. — Fooloso4
I don't know what you mean by "logical sloppiness" — Janus
Can you give some more detail about how you think a Cartesian bias could transform the problem of the meaning of being into the Hard Problem? — Janus
:up:I imagine you mean that we are fated to be held to all of our acts in relation to our (one) self. So when you say we “can’t disagree with ourselves” you are underlining that who we are is subject to all our acts in our, or others’, desire to put us together as a coherent self. — Antony Nickles
The responsibility one undertakes by applying a concept is a task responsibility: a commitment to do something. On the theoretical side, what one is committed to doing, what one becomes liable to assessment as to one’s success at doing, is integrating one’s judgments into a whole that exhibits a distinctive kind of unity: the synthetic unity of apperception. It is a systematic, rational unity, dynamically created and sustained by drawing inferential consequences from and finding reasons for one’s judgments, and rejecting commitments incompatible with those one has undertaken. Apperceiving, the characteristically sapient sort of awareness, is discursive (that is, conceptual) awareness. For it consists in integrating judgments into a unity structured by relations of what judgments provide reasons for and against what others.
I agree; it is weird that people seem to be able to convince themselves on some imagined "objective" basis, that their inner experience is illusory. I think it's also kind of sad. — Janus
I guess the “costume” would be the hats we wear in pushing an agenda (of predetermined universality, overlooking our ordinary criteria). — Antony Nickles
:up:My claim would be that both philosophers and scientists are prone to the desire for certainty. — Antony Nickles
if you have a locked box that I can’t look inside, the phrase “the hidden contents of your box” refers to the hidden contents of your box. — Michael
:up:It is as if you think what's in your box somehow can define what's in everyone else's box. — Baden
The blind can talk about things just fine. — Michael
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/essence/ec01_1.htmThe true, albeit hidden, sense of the saying “Feeling is the organ of the divine” is that feeling is the noblest, the most excellent, i.e., the divine, in man. How could you perceive the divine through feeling if feeling itself were not divine? The divine can be known only through that which is itself divine – “God can be known only through himself.” The Divine Being perceived by feeling is in reality nothing but the being of feeling itself which is enraptured and fascinated by itself – feeling that is blissful in itself, intoxicated with joy.
This goes to explain that where feeling is made the organ of the infinite, the subjective essence of religion, the object of religion loses its objective value. — Feuerbach
Is this synthetic or analytic knowledge ? A discovery or a paraphrase ? What is the nature of this self-given self ? Is this person itself given ? Are you a 'pure witness' before which there stands an empirical ego which is transparent to itself ?I’d say that my first person experience is the most self-evident thing there is to me. — Michael
to try to have control over who we think we are and what we say—philosophy created the idea of "consciousness" — Antony Nickles
Taking "me" as given and special and building our understanding around that desire is an attempt to remove the unpredictability of people, the vagueries of communication, and our ongoing responsibility to make ourselves intelligible and to respond to the claims of others. — Antony Nickles
:up:The thing that provides the very foundations of knowing, seems to be itself elusive. — schopenhauer1
this would raise questions about what is meant by "feeling" in this context and how it is related to the physical processes that occur in the universe. — schopenhauer1
Certainly a logical possibility. Maybe not a physical possibility. It could be that first-person experiences are an unavoidable, deterministic consequence of a sufficiently advanced responsive organism. — Michael
I agree with you about using language to express thoughts and feelings that are otherwise hard to express. On the point quoted though, I think we can just as easily explain in the other direction. We can think of mentalistic language evolving within a larger system of signs exchanged by cooperative and competitive organisms. For instance, it's more efficient to be lenient on those who harm the tribe 'accidentally.'This language is only possible on account of the commonalities of private experience as I see it. — Janus
I’m saying that the colours they see and talk about are private to them. — Michael
, how would one know that the posited creature was seeing green, and not seeing quantity? The critter would say "the water is green" when there is the right amount of water, and "the water is red" otherwise; so a better account would be simply that for the critter, "red" means the wrong quantity of water in that creature's language, while "green" just means "the right quantity of water". That is, one cannot divorce the meaning from the use. — Banno
I wonder where? What a waste of time. — jgill
He's playing on the word "real". — Banno
He can only reach a much less impressive conclusion, one that will not appeal to the boys quite so much. — Banno
I recon one could give a decent defence of scientific realism as an outcome of instrumentalism; where realism is just holding that sentences about electrons are either true or false. Might think on that a bit. — Banno
For that matter - is the Interface Theory of Perception falsifiable, in Popper's sense. It's hard to see how any empirical facts could be used to falsify a theory about the nature of empirical cognition. — Wayfarer
And yet, if the snake bites, you die. So "The snakebite is poisonous" is true even if the snake is not real? How's that? — Banno
Boring, maybe, but also pretty decisive. — Banno
I know my "box' contains something, and I assume that you know yours does, even though I cannot know that for sure. So, there is private experience, and we all know that, because we can entertain thoughts and feelings that others cannot know about. — Janus
:up:I found that essay very moving. — Tom Storm
I now wish that I had spent somewhat more of my life with verse. This is not because I fear having missed out on truths that are incapable of statement in prose. There are no such truths; there is nothing about death that Swinburne and Landor knew but Epicurus and Heidegger failed to grasp. Rather, it is because I would have lived more fully if I had been able to rattle off more old chestnuts – just as I would have if I had made more close friends. — Rorty