Post deleted by me. Don’t know what happened there.

It is difficult to even recognize and discover a truth about the world; it is harder than that to say it truly.

Working through the article. Here are some initial lines I personally would love to hear developed.

“It is widely known in 2007 and was not widely known in 1957 that contingency is not equivalent to a posteriority, and that claims of contingent or temporary identity involve the rejection of standard
logical laws.”

That’s a tree question.

“One clear lesson is that claims about truth need to be formulated with extreme precision, not out of knee-jerk pedantry but because in practice correct general claims about truth often turn out to differ so subtly from provably incorrect claims that arguing in impressionistic terms is a hopelessly unreliable”

That’s important. A bigger tree.

“Philosophers who refuse to bother about semantics, on the grounds that they want to study the non-linguistic world, not our talk about that world, resemble scientists who refuse to bother about the theory of their instruments, on the grounds that they want to study the world, not our observation of it.“

Great line. Forrest issue.

“But when philosophy is not disciplined by semantics, it must be disciplined by something else: syntax, logic, common sense, imaginary
examples, the findings of other disciplines (mathematics, physics, biology, psychology, history, . . .) or the aesthetic evaluation of theories (elegance, simplicity, . . .). Indeed, philosophy subject to only one of those disciplines is liable to become severely distorted: several are needed simultaneously.”

Also interesting forrest issue. Still reading…

Language itself is not the game. Because “a language game involves more than just language.”

Does this then make sense:

In the case of building with blocks, we can construct a language game wherein two people work together and one yells “block” and as the other person hears the language and plays the game of building the other then brings the block because he heard “block” and knows the game. The language game of building here involves language and blocks (likely among other things and more language and more complex gaming). But it takes language and blocks before the language game can emerge. — Fire Ologist

3 distinctions to grapple with? 1. Language, 2. the world to which language is applied, in a 3. language game.

Or

The use of the words (or, the fact of, i guess) is clearly a language game — AmadeusD

This sounds like using language itself is a game (maybe because it comes with syntax, or subject/predicate functioning)? Or is language still not itself a game, and we can talk about language without its gaming application?

I think these are valid questions, no? I certainly don’t know how to address.

For Williamson, systematic philosophical theorising is not the problem, but the lack of seriousness and rigour in it's pursuit. Now I think this not so far from my distinction between dissection and discourse, and worth a proper look — Banno

This has great moving parts: theorizing with rigour. Promising.

way to assess levels of creativity in philosophy. The Williamson article might offer a way to move that discussion beyond mere anecdote. — Banno

‘Mere anecdote or, rigorous metaphysics and “systematic philosophic theorizing”. Philosophic newness, captured in turn of phrase. Creativity is fraught with peril. Continues to intrigue.

how we are to mark, as well as to make, progress in philosophy — Banno

Great question.

rejecting the suggestion that the mere divorce of science from philosophy is sufficient to explain progress — Banno

I reject that. That’s a sideways move at best, not progress to me.

we can intelligibly ask what bread is made of, but not, at least amongst the presocratics, what everything is made of. It is a step too far to ask what things in general are made of — Banno

I think you can intelligibly ask is there an ingredient (so to speak) that all things are made of among other ingredients that only some things are made of, but I still agree “it is a step too far to ask what things in general are made of.”. No need to take a side track, so early.

Understanding the nature of grain and water and heats, and how they interact, lead by degrees and indirectly to the questions of chemistry and physics that constitute our present start of play. — Banno

Staying inside the subject matter between the grain and water and heat, moving slowly, methodically towards eventually, bread, and then chemistry, and quantum physics.... always careful before moving on and retesting, before restating again…

Speculative ambition is an important part of that process. — Banno

Agree. This, to me, is the world part of the equation. It is what the science says or is about. It is the world ingredient.

theoretical system building, needs dissection, careful analysis of small, concrete questions. Williamson wants both — Banno

Yes. Philosophy is a science at the very least; it may be more; it may be about blocks or dead poetry, but science is there in every mix of philosophy proper.

discourse must be disciplined by standards akin to those in the sciences — Banno

For sure. I think that is what Aristotle and Descartes and Hegel and Spinoza and Leibniz and Kant and Wittgenstein and Russell and others were trying to do. Skeptical rigor exists in Plato’s Parmenides, and really in the fact that he made the question and doubting conclusions so central to making dialectical progresses. But, I wander off again. Need more rigour..

undeniable progress has been made in modal logic and in truth theory, and there has been at least movement in ontology, with the then-raging debate between realism and anti-realism and the semantics of natural languages. — Banno

From above:
“systematic philosophic theorizing” and “discourse” and “ways to assess creativity in philosophy”

But now with progress, as:

“modal logic and in truth theory”
“debate between realism and anti-realism”
“semantics”

Doubt I can keep up, but I’ll try.

And so a language game involves more than just language. — Banno

I think I see. And thanks for the reply.

Language itself is not the game. Interesting. Because “a language game involves more than just language.”

Does this then make sense:

In the case of building with blocks, we can construct a language game wherein two people work together and one yells “block” and as the other person hears the language and plays the game of building the other then brings the block because he heard “block” and knows the game. The 1. language game of building here involves 2. language and 3. blocks (likely among other things and more language and more complex gaming). But it takes 2 and 3 before 1 can emerge.

And when you say “we are always already in a language” (which I think you said a few times), does that mean we are always sort of given into a language game, already playing by communicating through language, or does it mean something else, like in a language but not in a language game? I took it to mean we are already in a game when we are thinking/communicating in a language about the world.

What do you mean by “already in a language” then?

The Analytic is analytic. He is a knife: he cuts. He is very good at dividing, separating. He is not good at ...really anything else. — Leontiskos

I’m am trying to salvage dialogue.

I pointed out from the beginning, we need to identify something whole before we have something to divide, we need both the metaphysical and the analytic, so I agree that when only focused on dividing we ignore half of the activity, but there I go trying to talk about the substance again.

The way I read many of these exchanges between those I will call the Wittgensteinians and the Atistotlians (although that is just to avoid naming people here, but you know who you are!), is the Aristotelians openly seek to understand the other position (or any position), so they can accurately analyze it; they ask specific questions about it, to both better understand it and to reveal the limits of their own understanding, and they provide restatements, to better ensure everyone is on the same page; they craft critiques, and offer positive alternate views. Whereas the Wittgensteinians may do these same things, but only when talking with each other - when someone disagrees with them who is perceived to be an Aristotelian, they act indignant and paranoid (emotional) and tired (as if dealing with their lessers), and argue about hidden meanings and bad-faith and psychopathy (authoritarian intent, myth-making, delusional), some of them making ad hominem comments, and position themselves as too smart to dignify such people.

It’s tedious to deal with but occasionally substance forms, so I keep trying.

But mostly, it seems clear to me that the Wittgenstinians who keep taking away their ball to go home and don’t want to play anymore, are doing so because they are constantly being beat, losing the arguments.

There is no reason to think analytics are the true philosophers and metaphysicians are just “making stuff up.” We haven’t gotten very far off of this bold (metaphysical) claim, and the Aristotleans have made it clear that Analytics First, the “Make Anslytics Great Again” crowd, is lacking any useful, explanatory power of “better” “ways to philosophize”.

It is all written in black and white here. There are so many unanswered arguments. So much left undeveloped. Seems clear to me, the Wittgensteinians are in no position to tell anyone “you are wrong” despite how often they say it.

But that is no reason for giving up. People are indeed wrong. I’d love to reengage on the substance.

We should be tolerant - truly more tolerant.

Wittegensteinians - you picked the fight - you lost the opening rounds - any response before you go home to your private messaging?

What could have been an interesting thread was killed by the resident sophists — Janus

I thought it was interesting. It was Banno who specifically asked to kill it. So are you referring to Banno as a resident sophist?

Question their biases — Janus

That’s not what I ever see. I see people avoiding a direct question, or changing the subject with an accusation “you are biased”. One person needs to ask a question at a time. That’s a dialogue.

You don’t always get to answer questions with a better question like “maybe you are actually an authoritarian because of your God delusion?” Or “I’ll answer your question as soon as you answer 10 of mine, even though I made the assertion you are questioning and you haven’t asserted anything yet.”

Real bummer.

Pointing already is a language game.

It's only a block so far as it participated in the game of building.

This is of course quite contrary to the view that there are already blocks outside of the language game. — Banno

This is not to say that there is nothing more than language. There certainly are blocks. — Banno

These two come off as contradictory:
1. There are only blocks within the game of building.
2. There is more than language; there certainly are blocks.

Does it clarify to say instead “there certainly are things outside of language games, it’s just that they are not ‘blocks’ until we bring them into a game such as building.”

would only result in more arguments about what ‘dead’ means. — Wayfarer

No that’s wrong. :razz:

It’s how ‘dead’ can coherently be used when referring to this thread.

:grin: Nicely done.

Banno killed the thread.
And like rigor mortis, I just wouldn’t stop.

Up for an autopsy?

Analytics do hold to a standard of consistency. — Leontiskos

I agree. That is the important contribution of the analytic school to the philosophic enterprise. Rigor.

Added: Precision. And so clarity.

Would this not mean that some people might practice compassion even whilst holding an ostensibly intolerant belief system? Ye shall know them by their works. — Tom Storm

We have to go out of our way to show compassion on a message board. I’ve said multiple times in here and otherwise that I respect Banno and this and other posts.

I’ve made clear where I agree with ideas and specific language from Banno and J.

I get along with J.

Banno is intolerant of me.

And Banno and J can take care of themselves.

And it is not “us” versus “them” personally. I am happy to live in the world with them and respect them as I respect myself and you both. “Them” refers to “their arguments”. — Fire Ologist

You are misreading the situation. Easy to do on an online forum.

dancing can become an excuse for avoiding arguments — Leontiskos

Describes half of this thread.

Cut out the fat and just give me an argument for what you believe to be true. — Leontiskos

Yes, please.

What I find funny about "hermeneuticists" is that their practice shows them to be looking for a "view from nowhere," even as they speak against it. They attempt to float above the fray with endless qualifications and contextualizations, and to what end? — Leontiskos

To no end. I am beginning to think that as soon as they see an end in sight, they feel the need to back track, take a turn, or just stop moving. Ends, like foundations, are anathema to the purely analytic philosophic enterprise. And sets a standard that cannot be met, namely, deconstruction without construction.

it is not at all clear that one can opt in or out of the rational community.
— Leontiskos

I want to say that the question of this thread is bound up with the question of whether we all have common aims, or more precisely, common ends.
— Leontiskos — Leontiskos

Good.

Count Timothy von Icarus is not a police officer going — Leontiskos

Yes. I was playing language police. This isn’t just about language.

He is engaged in a Socratic move, "Although you don't know it, you just contradicted yourself. And if you think you don't care about contradicting yourself, then I will show you that you really do care about it." — Leontiskos

Yes. We all need to recognize “since no one ever” about the world, in order to adhere to the PNC.

Added: So the language police may have over stepped frisking J for saying “no one ever”, or the Wittgensteinian law book may need to be revised.

I'm in favor of the nitpickers — Moliere

I am too. My point since the beginning here is that we assert in absolutes in order to move towards the world and truth, and we need to dissect every assertion with rigor to keep it honest (valid and sound).

Personally, I want to be able to say “no one ever” about the world. I hate the police as much as the next guy. Most of the cops I meet are Wittegensteinians. I am more often the perpetrating violator.

But I agree we need those cops, and add we need both metaphysics and analytics, in that order, for sake of logically coherent, sound assertions about the world.

I wonder most about where Banno said in the OP “perhaps we need both.”

I’d say we certainly do. No one ever says something meaningful about the world without both. (But I can hear the police sirens again…

Just a little language police stop and frisk.

Given my best take on reality, — J

:up:

Makes sense again.

Leaves open the possibility or at least hope of baggage free observation.

I don't know if I'd rule it out on principle -- since it is just from my context that I see these things. — Moliere

Ok, so does that mean you would never use the phrase “since no one is ever”?

That would seem more consistent to me - to avoid saying things like that.

..,since none of us is ever… — J

In order to say that, don’t you need to see all people at all times?

Isn’t that so high above all space and time, like from nowhere? If you were always in a context with baggage, how can you get to a place where you can say “no one is ever”?

Maybe it is just the way it was said. Sounded absolute.

since none of us is ever… — J

None. Not one.
Is ever. Not ever.
Absolutely no one can possibly be.
Since none of us is ever.

Sounds like if someone say “well one time I realized a moment void of all my baggage, discarded everything, even this language, and was encumbered by no context, and had a view of all things” if someone said that, we don’t have to care about anything else they say, because “since none of us is ever” baggageless and contextless.

Maybe no one is.

Just sounds so absolute. Which might contradict the thrust of the position.

..,since none of us is ever… — J

Doesn’t it take a contextless, baggage-less posture to be able to say what you just said above?

The trouble is the fact that processes have goals by definition. — Leontiskos

Unless you don’t believe in definitions.

Processes should have goals. But dissection focused philosophical styles are process for the sake of process. It’s eternal recurrence of the same…process.

I don't think it's useful to set up a dialectical between "contextlessness" as a "view from nowhere/everywhere" on the one hand, and admitting the relevance of context on the other. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I am starting to see the dialectic as between process oriented (with no clear goal) (like this thread Banno set up), and goal oriented (with a clear process) (like proponents of truth like).

Or maybe a dialectic between working from the inside out (like Banno repeating how all is already within a language), and working in a straight line (like those of us actually want to get somewhere when we speak do).

Hard for me to pinpoint. Indeterminacy revelers versus determinacy seekers.

I thought this insight was instructive:

Banno wants the assertions about the world to emerge out of the doing. What we do with words is the arche of what others might call human knowledge. Because of this, “it’s a process” is his answer to every question such as “where are you going with this?” (‘Are all narratives true or not’ was a ‘where are you going with this’ type question.) Our main question about his method is, “how will we know whether we are getting anywhere and whether we have reached the end and can say we now know something?” “Will you ever have a point to your dissection of everything?

The closest answer to these last two questions the process/dissection philosophers have given is “context” (although I have some catching up to do).

I think “context” is really their word for “absolute principle”. (So they are contradicting their methods by asserting non-arbitrariness grounded in context.). They think they are not contradicting themselves because they think the “context” can have as much flux and lack of permanence and indeterminacy as whatever the undefined thing has within that context. But context must be fixed or it does not do the work they think it does to avoid arbitrariness and they get nowhere when they’re trying to make a point (like this thread is getting nowhere, constantly moving away from any target that might begin to emerge).

“Con” means with.
“Text” means the language.

Context has to be outside the language, to be with it, or it is just more ill-defined indeterminacy and can’t provide sufficient context.

IMO, language itself is outside of the world, which is how it can be about the world. Language is meta-world. By speaking, the process lovers refute themselves and cease being doers. We can’t do language without referring it to the world.

We can make language it’s own object and speak about logic and let truth mean validity, but this is just a meta-meta-language, because language is already meta).

So when they discount all references to the world as metaphysical and vacuous and ill-conceived, in addition to contradicting themselves by speaking at all and situating themselves outside of the world in a language, they in effect make speaking meaningless. Which is, if they are conscious of it, why they devour all attempts to say anything.

If we parrot what they say about the world and say: “all is flux, but who really can say” - they will forgo the dissection process and allow our metaphysics to stand. They make all kinds of metaphysical claims as long as they are tied to flux and relation and process, and as long as they leave more questions unanswered when answers might emerge. And as long as they are spoken by accolytes and friends, as opposed to people like me. But as soon as they get a hint of those like me who seek to deconstruct deconstruction itself, they devour all meaning and references to the world and try to be more consistent and true to their process oriented, goalless metaphysic.

We probably should not allow the constant reframing of the central question.

I think that is the key to showing the weakness of just being Wittgenstein about things. They never can sit still. It becomes pretty plain that this is so by act of will, and not by conclusion of logic. (Srap is discounting reason itself, which I agree, we always must be careful with our human limitations of even reason, but it’s suspect to me in this context.)

I am not trying to win a debate. I am trying to be right, conform myself and my thinking to what is (as you say Count). I am utterly unconcerned with authoritarianism. Or, I am trying to be the sole authoritarian in my own life. (Trying to is important here.). They are trying to defeat our arguments and defeat their perception of our underlying motives. I will be happy to confirm all is only flux and that a man cannot step into the same river twice, or once, because then I will be able to live more successfully (or cease trying to succeed at living). I will also throw away all philosophy (as speaking refutes never standing still in the river). I happen to think flux is only half of the story language refers to, not all of it. I like Aristotle’s way of thinking so far as I can tell.

This thread will certainly never get there, which is ironic as they are stuck in the mud, mud being the clearest form and context for them.

Edit:
And it is not “us” versus “them” personally. I am happy to live in the world with them and respect them as I respect myself and you both. “Them” refers to “their arguments”. I’m drowning in mud as well, only struggling with it because I see lifelines in truth, and absolute goals, and ideals and good answers.

Vera was the best… I enjoyed her intelligence, wisdom and wit. Her stories of real life and fiction captivated me. Extraordinary.
A purrfect participant as writer, reader and responder… — Amity

Indeed.

Full of life, color and personality, pouring through this often dry, black and white forum. She was always fun to read. And such a great writer.

She disagreed with almost everything I said, so when we did agree, which also happened, you know something heartfelt had been shared all the more.

So sorry to hear this.

I know she would not recommend I waste my time, but I will remember her and Francis in my prayers anyway, because I know she would have told me to do whatever works for me.

There is a difference between following some god-given principle and trying things out to see what works.

You appear to advocate the former, I advocate the latter. — Banno

Trying what things out?

Count is talking about developing a thing to try out.

(Not trying to follow it or claim it is from from god.)

You go from “god-given principles” to “things”.

What things? Any old arbitrary narrative? Or something more about the world itself and able to be meaningfully understood by more than one person?

Once we see what this “thing” or “principle” is, and see how it can develop and how it works, then we “try it out” or “follow” it.

We are at the thing creation stage.

Banno, I get that you want the principle to emerge out of the doing, that “it’s a process” is your answer to every “where are you going with this” question. Count’s question is “will you ever get somewhere or know it when you get there?” “Is it going to be called a principle or what whenever you get there?”

And you are always the one on these threads who sees God lurking.

I’m going to move on to the Srap-Leon conversation, with Moliere and Wayfarer, where people seem to be working together.
Not just digging further into their entrenched positions and not listening to anyone who merely disagrees.

Nice not talking to ya.

what the community says is the case… — Banno

Sounds authoritarian.

So now you are doing… — Banno

Count’s been doing one thing for about 10 pages now. Beating his head against the wall, where Banno says whatever he thinks will deflect from a direct answer and avoid an actual discussion (despite constantly talking about having a discussion.)

You’ve been spiraling and spiraling away from central moving issues, trying to avoid the contradiction you think isn’t a contradiction. Moving and moving the goal posts to avoid what is clear…

“Not arbitrary” That is your term. You want statements with some value to NOT be arbitrary. Banno’s law:

“Make sure to say ‘but not arbitrary’ about useful statements”. Enough said.

Anyone asks you why or how this law works, asking “Why not let all validity and truth be arbitrary, and if not, by virtue of what?”

And you won’t give answer. Post after post. It is obscured and avoided. As if we all can’t see what is in black and white right here in these pages.

When pressed anyway, as Count refocuses the evasions, in attempt to continue the “discussion” as we aspire towards, to sort of triangulate towards something “together” as you call it, we squeeze out like a midwife “context” and now “what the community says”.

But how that is not a new arbitrary, moving target (which Count keeps showing over and over is the case) simply avoiding the direct question, showing the arbitrariness of your positions?

How have we moved this discussion forward together at all as you want as our goal?

And that all isn’t rediculous. We aren’t smart enough to understand what is happening here?

And your methods aren’t authoritarian and tyrannical.

And that all of these pages and arguments are not useless to truly avoid the same issue over again: is every statement true/valid/non-arbitrary, or not?

Even if you want to reframe your issue Banno, it’s a simple yes or no question. You can deconstruct it after you answer it, so just answer it.

I don’t think you answer it, by design, and it’s a design flaw in a thinker who wants to avoid arbitrariness, or accusations of arbitrariness. So now there is no real telling what is your idea of the “arbitrary” or “not-arbitrary” or “context” or “determinate/absolute” Now we must add Banno’s version and context of “community triangulation.”

We have an endless attempt to begin a discussion, instead of an attempt to interpret what your OP said.




The thing is, I like “triangulation” with the “community” to test the value/truth/validity, or a statement/assertion/narrative. But the goal, IMO, has to be something about the world, if we are to avoid arbitrariness.

And the irony of it all is that, IMO, it is the absolute and truth alone that defeat tyrannical authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is about a person, not an idea. The absolute is knowledge, which makes you, the knower, your own authority. That is the beginning of any possibility of avoiding tyranny.

Context is always necessary, absolutely.

My solution, still, is in trying to listen to one another and build a relationship of trust. — Moliere

You left out one part. In order to listen, someone needs to say something to listen to.

We say as metaphysicians.
We listen as analytics.
We trust each other on the dialogue together.

I like your framing of "arbitrariness," though, because it's really not something we need to worry about, IMO. — J

Ok, really? The issue is not the issue?
What about the framing (context) do you like? Although I’d rather have you explain how that answers the question you don’t think we need to worry about.

I’m a data privacy and security lawyer, manage many employees as a founder of my firm, and manage them one on one, mentoring new attorneys and old attorneys learning this new practice, And I learn with them, building a practice area that is still about 15 years new and growing and evolving. Most of my clients are entities that have been hacked causing data theft, ransomware events, and other fraud and compliance issues. Giant companies and mom and pop entities.

Can you think of something more amorphous than lawyers interpreting new laws and framing the context of new types of facts to make new arguments with other lawyers? I am utterly beset on all sides with gray ambiguity, unknown origins, unknown goals, on uncharted territory. Basically people being people in a virtual ‘world’.

As a lawyer, at work in the real world, where information is like concrete, a raw material, when things are broken, businesses are threatened, bankruptcy looming, and no one knows the truth or the facts or maybe even what the real issue is, I still have to speak. It is my job to frame the context and make an argument and represent my clients’ interests to help them defeat interests and people who are against them. Most of the time we are all drowning in “it depends” and “the answer is unproven or untested ” or “the law has not been interpreted by any courts” or “there are contradictory interpretations in various courts depending on the jurisdiction.”

In this world of uncertainty, I have to build something so solid I can charge businesses and insurance companies money for it. I have to justify my words and arguments and say “what is” and “what is real” and “who is wrong” and “who is absolutely full of shit” and “what this means and what it does not mean” so that people with competing interests all come to agreement; all ina climate where everything is constantly dissected. The arguments and interpretations I make convince my client to let me speak for them, convince the people and regulators suing my client to go away, and convince the insurance companies to pay for it all.

Indeterminacy, does not work or function or get me or my partners and employees paid, despite most of what I work with being indeterminate.

In this virtually new mix, if I identify no absolutes, certainties and objective truths, I will absolutely fail. Companies won’t listen to me and will falter, and lives will be impacted, in the real world. I only succeed when I demonstrate something undeniable, the absolute - words you can take to the bank, even if the cost creates great risk. Sometimes I convince people to pay their detractors, not me, millions, or pay for expensive forensic investigations, for public notices of a breach, all things that only seem to hurt them, but for sake of what is still in their best interest.

I have to convince everyone of the same thing, no matter what their biases and contexts or goals.

Do you think I could get away with the following discussion with all of these competing stakeholders if the result costed money? How about big money?

You and Banno have said a few times basically that the truth of statements is not arbitrary - that one statement can be true for one reason and another statement is true for another reason.
You said it is context that prevents arbitrariness, and prevents meaninglessness, or allows stating an opinion to serve a function as a statement.

But you have also said that, along with the arbitrary, authoritarian “absolutes” are also bad. That stating something is “absolutely true” is basically wishful story-telling, because only a tyrant would say he knows or could say ‘what is truth’ absolutely.

Right? This is your position:

The arbitrary is bad.
The authoritarian is bad.
Opinions have context to give them a value.

Nothing more to ask about in this context.
Nothing more needs to be said.

I will send you my bill for the wisdom in the morning.

And oh, by the way, if you ask me: “either all statements are true or they are not, but if not, by virtue of what are they not true?” My answer is, “it doesn’t matter, and I won’t answer.”

That is your current position here.

Well that is incoherent. You won’t get paid yet - it doesn’t cash out.

Count, Leon and I have showed you and Banno how it doesn’t work probably 15 distinct times and ways now across many more posts. (Once was enough to beg a reply that has not come.)

You need to be able to answer this question. I will happily address any/all questions but one at a time. Right now, we need to discuss “context or absolute truth” versus “arbitrariness”

You can have any opinion you want. But if you want me to pay you for it, it better be the right one or the ground will continue to crumble beneath us.

Answer the simple question. Whatever the answer is, I’m not seeing it, and neither is Count or Leon.

If the answer is, “there is no truth, we know nothing absolutely, so the context in which every opinion sits can never be certified or ultimately proven certain, and so the value of every opinion is as arbitrary as the next one,” then so be it. Tell me that. That’s what I am paying for. Something that hangs together that we can try to apply and show the value of in the real world.

——

The word “authoritarian” on this entire thread is a euphemism, and a metaphor. They way you and Banno and others dodge and weave around the questions make sense, where contexts shift to make any assertions whatsoever stand. Who is behaving like a tyrant, answering to no one in this debate?

We are still just philosophers, all of us literally just talking, blowing in the wind - if we want our arguments to have any impact IRL we better hope they might possibly be binding and absolute, because faced with absolute truth, people lie and cheat anyway, even when the arguments are air tight.

Rigging contexts will only get us so far, because it is still just more gray indeterminacy, able to be fire framed and deconstructed endlessly.

I would have an easy time convincing a majority of people that you and Banno are dodging the issues and questions.

I’d be allowed to treat the witness as hostile to the court.

And then the Judge would force you to answer “are all narratives acceptable or not?” The most liberal progressive judge would demand, “in my court, on my record, nothing proceeds until you answer, or the charge that you say ‘all narratives may be true’ stands. You swore to tell the truth in my court and now we see you can still say anything you want, possibly giving no meaning to the ‘truth’ you swore, since you won’t answer the question and think it doesn’t matter.”

I can hear the charges of more “authoritarian” judgmental demands. It’s just a debate. You aren’t really on the stand. I don’t really have any power over you. Whatever you say won’t change how you choose to live and whatever you do next. I can be as much a tyrant or slave as I want IRL and so can you - that is what matters not in this debate.

But if it’s a debate, why not just answer the question?

Why you analytic dissectors and logicians think you can make these arguments is baffling.



——

In the OP, Banno said something like ‘maybe you need both the discursive narrative and the analytic dissectors.’
Maybe??! That is a central issue here - wherefore the ability to “make stuff up” as Banno and Witt frame metaphysics? This is not a small admission, even if only hinted at by Banno.

Then later, Banno suggested reframing analogies as working together on a construction but not knowing the final result. This again is a huge admission. “Working together” implies something common - a work bench where we come together. It fixes something absolute, that neither can deny in order to work towards some unknown final result.

And I pointed out NONE of us like arbitrariness.

Non-arbitrariness should now be the anchor (or unknown “X” we keep in mind). We are all trying to say how non-arbitrariness is a possibility, because we all agree and have said in one way or another, arbitrariness is bad.

And is there no way to remove the threat of arbitrariness by offering the standards in context? — J

Seems like “in context” is meant to do the same work as “in truth, or absolutely”, all of these to avoid arbitrariness.

But we can ask of the context type limiter, “by virtue of what did you determine the context”, or “can you be wrong about the choice of context (or if not wrong, can you construct any context you want or feel)?” Context identification immediately begs these questions. Without a satisfactory answer to these questions, we are still in a world of arbitrariness. (Which I believe is basically what Count, Leon and I are saying).

But really, if we are all agreeing with each other that arbitrariness is bad, and arguing over whether that which prevents arbitrariness is better framed as either ‘an absolute’ or ‘a context’, maybe we should pause on the distinction between absolute truth and context, and not keep trying to distinguish what happens to arbitrariness as between context defined statements versus absolutely defined statements.

And I do see the looming problem of “if context doesn’t avoid arbitrariness, but the absolute does, how do we know what is truth or not?”

However, to me, the first step in solving a problem is admitting it. Arbitrariness is no use to anyone - how do we avoid it?

(We should almost crack open some champagne here. Any arbitrary champagne will do, but it absolutely has to have alcohol in it.)

As far as I can tell, there has to be an understanding of whether or not we will ever defeat arbitrariness without absolutes and truths, but I think the question can be framed as, “can a context do the work of an absolute”?

I don’t think so.

Whether we ever find absolute truth, whether we get there with a particular, single absolutely true statement about an objective world, is another question, but if we start all these inquiries seeking only statements grounded in context, I think it is clear that we will never get there, by design.

Again, the equivocation looms. Wisdom never has no determinate content. It may have semi-determinate content, but semi-determinate content involves some determinate content. — Leontiskos

Yes.

Perhaps a better analogy would be were we are working together on a construction, but do not agree as to the final result. — Banno

If you are both working towards agreement. If you are both working towards the same final result. If you are “working together.” That would be a fine interpretation to me.

An example of working together would be you saying to Count, “I see your point, there must be something determinate in the mix here.”

The fact that we switch from one analogy to you better analogy before expressly agreeing on the value of the first analogy, shows you trying to frame things, like you don’t like the framing. Why is that? Why do we need a better analogy? Because that could mean people are still at cross purposes and not working together.

if you think "determinate" and "indeterminate" are poles, then what is an example of an intermediate between the two? — Leontiskos

I think Count Timothy von Icarus' point is a bit like Aristotle's point that the archer must have a target. He must be aiming at something. If someone is said to have knowledge, then it must be knowledge of something. — Leontiskos

Why must wisdom "have some determinate content"? There's the idea again that if it has no "determinate content" then it is nothing, but that doesn't follow. The assumption is that without determinacy —without clear, specifiable content—“wisdom” is vacuous. But this is not a necessary conclusion. The leap from indeterminacy to meaninglessness is unwarranted. — Banno

I see determinate things and indeterminate things, so there is a quality to each and they are more like poles. Like determinacy and indeterminacy are properties of some thing before it is known and during which we inquire about it (like wisdom).

And the Aristotle example is helpful. We must be aiming at some thing, but to the extent we are not sure what that thing is, or don’t know all there is to know about that thing, that thing has some indeterminacy to it.

But Banno is wrong because we can’t even identify or determine something specific, like “wisdom”, if it does not have something determinate to it. Count is right to say that, from the very start of the target practice, wisdom must have something determinate to it or we may as well be talking about “stupidity” or “my shoes”. There must be some determinacy before we make any meaningful move toward some particular or something specific and not vacuous.

And I think my question about how you negotiate the absolute/arbitrary chasm IRL offended you. — J

Maybe a little. I mean, the level of this conversation really has nothing to do with real life. We each can’t really infer anything about how we get along in life by debating metaphysics versus analytics. It’s like two people debating the causes of the Punic wars and one says to the other - how do you manage life thinking like that? Kind of made me think, what are really talking about here?

Please let me apologize. I meant no personal criticism, though I see how it could have landed that way. — J

Very kind of you. No worries.

You must know by now I kind of invite the abuse. I’m like a street brawling philosopher. Would have loved a sit down with Hume, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, although I would have needed to bring Aristotle and Kant and Socrates to that fight. I can take a little abuse - and I get that the internet doesn’t always capture the real emotion involved.

I apologize myself for the distraction. Taking offense is mostly my problem not yours. Offend away. As long as you don’t just leave me hanging.

I don’t think we are understanding each other on the substance here. Life.

By now there are five other conversations to grab onto. Til next time.

Metaphysics takes a leap involving hypothesis based on assumption. Hegel had hubris claiming he saw the Absolute and giving it a capital “A”.

But I also see hubris in Wittgenstein. He made a similar mic drop move, but from the opposite pole.
— Fire Ologist — Moliere

One can be too proud or too humble, and we can think of extreme examples to make the point, but there is a kind of practiced back-and-forth in philosophical dialogue where sometimes we make the assertion and sometimes we take it back or think there's something else there. — Moliere

Yes. Back. AND forth.

Both sides of the dialogue working together.

It does take humility. But not too much or you shrink from making the assertion.

But hubris is usually just bad. You need confidence in life, but not hubris. I’d say.

do you think that kind of statement is available for all the areas that interest us as philosophers? — J

Appreciate you.

I think it’s available for anything speakable.

I also think it is difficult to achieve. But wouldn’t take step one towards it with passion if I didn’t see it as a goal.

You either become fascinated by the mechanics of dissection, or you resist it because you're in love with the project. :smile: — frank

Third option, I project build, welcoming your dissection, to produce a well tested product.

Except not here. Resisting it not on any principle but respecting the thread is maybe not the place.

This thread is about the process. Or types of processes.

Let's pretend for a moment that the OP is not another diatribe against your bogey of “monism.”... — Leontiskos

Banno is really passive aggressive. It’s hard when you are so smart like him to put up with us, so he builds up that anger I guess. Just joining in the discussion with the other psychologists around here.

I am pretending Banno is not really a part of the world of this thread. That’s called deluding myself, but, he is enabling me, which is nice. All the benefit of his thoughts and easy to ignore all the baggage. Count takes the heat.

At least until it will all crash and burn….

Is truth a property of statements? Or is it a property of the world? Or what? — frank

Should we start another thread?

“Property”?

Truth is said in statements or known in subjects and is about what is. Correspondence is part of it. Alignment of subject to object. Coherence and validity is part of this. Being is part of this. Identity and unity will be issues.

This is me avoiding the question. Truly.

So I bet you know enough to get back to this thread. If you feel you’ve made a point by me not simply defining truth, then ok. I don’t feel like this is on point.

We never resolved the earlier issue of whether discursive metaphysics comes first to provide the content that the analytic dissector can then dissect. Then we never resolved the issue of whether all statements are true or not.
Now we want to see if we can define truth together as friends over a cup of coffee?

So you admit there is a world we are both talking about?

What specifically about the world? — frank

Specifically, something, any thing, in it or about it, like for instance, ‘Frank the poster is posting.’

A fact is an example of the truth.

This is why this thread is so good. Now we are forced to ask “what is truth?”

When you ask me “what is truth”, do you mean “what is knowledge” or “how do we know” or do you mean “what is real” or do you mean “what is”?

Any which way, either all narratives are true or they aren’t, if you know what I mean, Frank.

What is truth? — frank

Truth:
To pry into this great question I would start by saying two things:
1. An example of one truth is like this: there is this person who calls himself Frank on TPF and who asks “what is truth.” That is an example of the truth. As a statement, it is a statement about the world, an actual world with an actual Frank in it apart from me who said this truth.
2. If truth can be defined in endless different ways then I would assert, there is no such thing as truth. This second statement isn’t a definition either, but it shows you that the one’s defining things, don’t get to be the arbiters of what is truth. Truth is about the world, not merely the speaking stating it.

Should we bother to go on, here in this thread?