It’s the zeitgeist, the spirit of the age. That’s how I see it. Many great thinkers expressed similar sentiments in the 20th Century. But the times, they are a’changin’. — Wayfarer

Yes, it's Hegel's Spirit of the Age. I find that concept tiresome, though. He had a more interesting concept, the Ortgeist, the "Spirit of the Locality", or "Spirit of the Place". There is a dialectic, a language, a dialect, between Zeitgeist and Ortgeist, a conversation between the Spirit of the Age and the Spirit of the Locality. It's fascinating stuff, if you read it like a work of literature. It's Tolkien-esque, I would say. Poetic.

I don't think you are. — Clearbury

See, I don't understand that. I'm agreeing with you on some of the points that you're making. I'm telling you that I'm agreeing with you (why would I lie? I have no reason to). You tell me that you don't believe me, when you say "I don't think you are". Fine, believe whatever you want to believe. I'm just telling you that I agree with some of the things that you're saying. Constitute any kind of case for anything? About what? Why would I have to constitute a case for the points that I agree with you? In any case, if I have to constitute a case, it's for the people that don't agree with those points. Or are you going to tell me again that I'm derailing your Thread? What are your rules, then?

I'm not a Wittgenstein expert, but he held that a private language is impossible and that languages depend on socially agreed upon rules.

I think that's wrong. — Clearbury

I agree with this, and I disagree with everything that you say after this. I'm being serious.

Quine meant, I suppose, that ¬∃x P(x), where P is the predicate corresponding to "Pegasus". — J

That is indeed what he meant. But that is also what Frege meant, and what Russell meant, though each of them had different reasons for it. What are Quine's reasons for even translating this discussion into common parlance when he speaks of "Pegasizing"?

Or is it the larger question of whether ∃x itself is a type of predication? — J

It has to do with this. The existential quantifier, ∃, does not have ontological import. Quine is averse to it because he thinks that it does have ontological import. But he's just plain wrong. Deluded, even. Frege and Russell had the same problem. If the universal quantifier, "∀", has no ontological import, there is no reason to believe that the existential quantifier has ontological import either, because you can switch these symbols under certain conditions, so what would you make of that, in ontological terms? Nothing, there is no ontology to symbols such as ∃ and ∀. They are not types of predication, they are types of quantification.

Then I apologize if I was, because I didn't intend to. Do you intend to enforce backseat moderation with your last comment? If not, then could you point me in the right direction, so that I can meaningfully contribute to this Thread? What's needed for a language, in my humble opinion, is:

1) A system of symbols,
2) Speakers who understand meanings, and
3) A mammalian brain (and a tongue, and ears, etc.).

Those are the things that are needed for a language.

Do you think this attitude of Bunge’s could fairly by described as ‘scientism’? — Wayfarer

Yes. It's one of his flaws as a philosopher. He fails to understand that his scientistic Crusade should drop all of the classicist sentimentalism. Enough with that. I actually met Bunge in person. I shook his hand. I can't say that I understand the man, at least not in what matters, but he had his flaws. He had his flaws as a philosopher, as a scientist, and as a human being. And I'm sure that a genius of his caliber could only agree with me on that, after careful thinking. The man was not alien to Ethics. He wrote a book about it. It just strikes me as hypocritical of him to write a tome on Ethics and then to write such an incendiary, sentimentalist pamphlet like "In Praise of Intolerance in Academia". Like, Bunge, mate, what is the matter with you? Why are you like this, mate? What unfathomable, horrible thing happened to you for you to be such a God-damn Ogre?

Do you disagree with something i said? i am not clear what your point is — Clearbury

Is disagreement possible, on a metaphysical level? That's what I'm asking you. What do you, as a thinking person, think about it? I think disagreement is indeed possible on a metaphysical level. Metaphysics is a divisive field by its very nature. It's literally Meta-Physics, not Physics, so it has already alienated itself from Physics by literal meaning. We can go back and forth on that, since the origin of the term "metaphysics" had to do with the Medieval classification of Aristotle's manuscripts. Point being, there is no "one" Metaphysics today, in the 21st Century. It's not a science, despite Bunge's wishful thinking to the contrary. So, to summarize: I believe that agreeing and disagreeing, as acts, are metaphysically possible. And I find that marvelous, and awe-inspiring. Does that prove that private languages are possible? Of course not.

I think it conveys a superficial grasp of what he’s intending to criticise. But it’s really the tone rather than the substance of the comments. ‘It proves to be nothing but transcendental idealism’ as if that itself provides sufficient condemnation. Whereas, it is my view that transcendental idealism stands the test of time, and that it is not for nothing that the Critique of Pure Reason is regarded as one of the seminal philosophical books of the modern period. Basically, Bunge is simply appealing to the like-minded. — Wayfarer

I agree. I don't agree with Bunge on that point, I agree with you, actually. Mate, it's not that I don't understand ya, it's just that you asked me to explain Bunge's POV, and that's wha' I'm doin', ey. Don't get ya knickas up in'a bunch ey.

As for the passage that you quoted, which you find neither obscure nor opaque (and I agree with you there), I'll just quote the next paragraph from Bunge's relevant text:

How could anyone think that this wild fantasy could shed any light on anything except the decadence of German philosophy? This extravagance can only have at least one of two negative effects on social studies. One is to focus on individual behavior and deny the real existence of social systems and macrosocial facts; these would be the products of such intellectual procedures as aggregation and “interpretation” (guessing). The other possible negative effect is to alienate students from empirical research, thus turning the clock back to the times of armchair (“humanistic”) social studies. The effect of the former move is that social science is impossible; that of the second is that social science is impossible. Either or both of these effects are apparent in the two schools to be examined next. — Mario Bunge

Again, does that answer your question, or not? If not, then what can I do for you, philosophically, mate?

By the time we get to agree to things, we're already successfully communicating - and so don't actually need to agree to things.

In my example, no one agrees that S means "i am having experience P". I just use the sound in the hope that it will convey that meaning, and because the person I am uttering it to is disposed to beeive I am having experience P when I make sound S, the communication is successful. No agreement was needed or had. — Clearbury

What can I say? As creatures of instinct, we speak in ways that sound pleasing to the human ear. Does that realization upset you somehow? I think it's marvelous. It's awe-inspiring really, if you think about it. Innit?

But how do you agree to something unless a language is already up and running? — Clearbury

Excellent question, I'm glad that you asked that. We do it instinctually, we're creatures of instinct. We have a proto-language, as creatures of instinct. That, or I'm crazy. I'm leaning towards the latter, not sure about you.

I would argue that everyone has a private language, however you wish to reasonably define such a term. What happens next is that, because we talk to each other, we agree to use some of the same terms. In doing so, our two private languages overlap. And where they overlap, that's common language between us. Now bring a third person and the same happens, now there's three of us talking. And that spreads, and it becomes a common language.

Or, you're born into a culture that speaks a specific language (i.e., King's English, Street Slang, whatever) and we're trying to speak to each other at those levels of the language. I prefer to speak the language of philosophy with other people who also prefer to speak the language of philosophy. That is why I have joined this Forum. To check out what the "Main Thing" under discussion is (I don't know what it is yet), and what I could possibly contribute in that sense, either constructively or de-constructively.

Talking about objects being "expressible" doesn't seem on target. — J

Fair enough, point taken. Let me try something else instead. Quine famously said that the very reason why Pegasus does not exist is because there is no object or creature in the world that "Pegasizes". In the 50's, someone wrote a paper, asking Quine if President Truman exists because "something Trumanizes", there is an object or creature in the world (i.e., Truman himself) who "Trumanizes".

Those types of words, "Pegasizes", "Trumanizes". What do they mean? What do they express?

Both Husserl and Heidegger held respectable posts at universities. Not to mention Hegel, who I have no doubt Bunge would have criticized for indulging in philosophical confabulations. — Janus

Bunge hated Hegel, and he hated him publicly as well as privately. That's no secret to anyone. He said that Hegel was a charlatan. He said it in lectures, in books, in press conferences, in the context of a coffee with friends, etc. Do I myself think that Hegel was a charlatan? Not necessarily. I don't agree with Bunge on everything.

As for Husserl and Heidegger, Bunge is speaking from the Analytic tradition. He defends people the likes of Rudolf Carnap, for example. Not Karl Popper, mind you. He thought that Popper was a fraud and a charlatan.

↪Arcane Sandwich
The date Bunge gives there seems imprecise, since much of the philosophy he is higly critical of, such as existentialism and phenomenology, considerably predated 1960. — Janus

Right. That's why he says that before the 60's, you would have been ostracized if you were an existentialist or a phenomenologist. And rightly so. That's his entire point.

Yeah, well, you know….it’s a bitch not being able to find any decent gymnasia these days. — Mww

Nah. Just join a book reading club or something, mate. Or play a tabletop game of some sort.

Fair enough, then I'll quote the next paragraph of the same document, on the example of phenomenology. He says:

Having feigned that real things such as chairs and colleagues do not exist, the phenomenologist proceeds to uncover their essences. To this end he makes use of a special intuition called “vision of essences” (Wesensschau), the nature of which is not explained, and for which no evidence at all is offered. The result is an a priori and intuitive science. This “science” proves to be nothing but transcendental idealism. This subjectivism is not only epistemological but also ontological: “the world itself is an infinite idea.” — Mario Bunge

What do you make of that? Should I continue quoting, or would you like to argue something?

Sure, everyone knows that. But problem is what part of the chemistry and neurons in the brain represents your reasoning Socrates is mortal? and under what forms? — Corvus

You're asking a question that falls within the domain of one of the most cutting-edge sciences of today, cognitive neuroscience. I am not a neuroscientist. I cannot answer that question myself. And I'm not even sure that cognitive neuroscientists have figured that out yet, but there might be some promising research programs in that sense.

And what? What would you need of me, philosophically, at this point in the conversation?

I read your saying brain tells mind what to do. That sounded like your brain does everything, and even orders your mind to do all the things for you. Your point was not clear at all. — Corvus

Well, then allow me to clarify it to the best of my ability. Your brain is a res extensa and a res cogitans at the same time, to phrase it in Cartesian terms. The fatal flaw of Modern Philosophy ever since Descartes was to simply suppose, without further ado, that the mind is a res cogitans but not a res extensa, and that the brain is a res extensa but not a res cogitans. The brain is quite simply both. It is a physical thing that has an extension in space and a duration in time. It has a certain chemistry, it is connected with various chemical systems, and it is made up of specialized cells called "neurons", which fire off different signals, such that there is a series of events and processes that such object, -the brain-, is undergoing when it is engaged in any cognitive activity, including what you call "consciousness". I don't like the word "consciousness" myself, I prefer the word "awareness".

You say, mind your business, but you don't say, brain your business. — Corvus

But you could, and you would not be wrong: for it is indeed the brain that "minds its own business" when it is thinking anything. You don't "have" a brain, you are your brain, plain and simple. Now, I understand that this is a controversial thing to say, and I don't say it lightly. But I say it truthfully and honestly. Does that mean that I'm correct? Not at all. If there is scientific evidence to the contrary, then I will change that specific, allegedly wrong belief that I have.

I never heard of someone saying, open your brain. I heard saying open your mind. — Corvus

They're metaphors. You can't literally "open your mind", no matter how you define "mind". The phrase "open your mind" does not have a literal meaning, it's just poetic advice. You could say open your brain as poetic advice, not as a literal thing that you would want to do.

there are events and objects happening and existing in the universe with no particular reasons or unknown reasons. — Corvus

Fair enough, but then I will say that I find that notion, scary. It's a frightening thing to contemplate, innit?

I still don't think the biological organ brain is mind. It is like saying your stomach is hunger, and your eyeballs are the sight. — Corvus

Not quite. The brain is not identical to the mind, and the mind cannot be reduced to the brain. The mind (as a series of events, and as a series of complex processes) is itself a series of events and processes that a living brain is undergoing.

It is not like saying that your stomach is hunger. It would be more precise to say that it's like your stomach and the process of digestion: your stomach is comparable to your brain (both of them are things), while your mind is comparable to your digestion (both of them are processes).

It is not like saying that your eyeballs are the sight. It would be more appropriate to say that your eyeballs are things (like your stomach, like your brain) and that sight itself is a process (like your digestion, like your mind).

Does that make sense to you?

If the people gathered here would allow me to "set the tone", so to speak, as if I was inserting a quarter into the jukebox of a Honky-Tonk, then I would share the following quote from Bunge:

Up until the mid 1960s whoever wished to engage in mysticism or freewheeling, intellectual deceit or antiintellectualism had to do so outside the hallowed groves of academe. For nearly two centuries before that time the university had been an institution of higher learning, where people cultivated the intellect, engaged in rational discussion, searched for the truth, applied it, or taught it to the best of their abilities. To be sure once in a while a traitor to one of these values was discovered, but he was promptly ostracized. — Mario Bunge

Mario Bunge,"In Praise of Intolerance to Charlatanism in Academia", page 96.

Well, I noticed reading Mario Bunge's Wikipedia entry that he's critical of phenomenology. I have never read anything about him, but it might be a good starting point, as that article is grounded in phenomenology. — Wayfarer

Then I would direct you to the most controversial, scathing, irreverent piece of literature that he has ever written, which is something that I normally don't share with acquaintances, not even with fellow Bungeans. I'm of course referring to his infamous article, titled In Praise of Intolerance to Charlatanism in Academia. Disclaimer: I do not fully agree with Bunge in general, and that document that he wrote is the one I feel the most negative about. It's a very confrontational piece, and it gets a few things factually wrong. But if you're interested in "learning how his mind works", so to speak, that's the article to read.

How do you think a Mario Bunge would respond to that criticism? — Wayfarer

I'll quote him. Again, I don't share the following view, I'm just quoting Bunge's words for ease of reference. This is from the article that I just linked above. He says:

Example 2: Phenomenology. This school, the parent of existentialism, is characterized by opaqueness. Let the reader judge from this sample of its founder’s celebrated attack upon the exact and natural sciences: “I as primaeval I Ur-lch construct konstituire my horizon of transcendental others as cosubjects of the transcendental intersubjectivity that constructs the world.” Phenomenology is also a modern paragon of subjectivism. In fact, according to its founder the gist of phenomenology is that it is a “pure egology,” a “science of the concrete transcendental subjectivity.” As such, it is “in utmost opposition to the sciences as they have been conceived up until now, i.e., as objective sciences.” The very first move of the phenomenologist is the “phenomenological reduction” or “bracketing out” (époché) of the external world. “One must lose the world through époché in order to regain it through universal self-examination.” He must do this because his “universal task” is the discovery of himself as transcendental (i.e., nonempirical) ego.

@Wayfarer I've read the article. How can I contribute to this discussion, now? What would you need of me, in philosophical terms? Is it something specific? Like "tell me the list of points that the article gets wrong", or is it something general? Like, "tell me what you think of these issues".

A rule of thumb for you: don't argue things you don't believe are true. — Leontiskos

Why not? That's what science does. You argue things that you don't believe in, to see if they hold up. It's called putting a hypothesis to the test, mate. Again, what "Room" is this? At what "level of awareness" do you want to reach an agreement on the issue of Mathematical Platonism? You're being uncooperative and trying to put the blame of un-cooperativeness on me. Well, I'm laying the blame right at your feet. Explain your POV on Mathematical Platonism, tell me why it's better than mine, and be done with it, mate.

The word "table" presumably describes the object in your living room — Leontiskos

No it does not, since my table is arguably a rigid designator in the Kripkean sense of the term. I don't think it is, but you could in principle argue in a Kripkean way about this point.

given the fact that you used the predication. — Leontiskos

Rigid designators are not predicates, mate. They're individual constants.

Most of the definitions of 'definition' will suffice to show that the word 'table' describes the object in your living room. — Leontiskos

No, none of them will suffice. And that's my point. If you wish to argue that point with me, then make an actual argument. I'll "teach you how to fish" in that sense, if that's what you need. If not, do it yourself, I'm not going to make the argument for your.

I note Mario Bunge is a compatriot of yours! — Wayfarer

Well he was, he died a few years ago. We share "argenticity", (if that's even a thing), not "canadianicity" (if that's even a thing).

but perhaps read a bit more into that essay and bring up a few more points. — Wayfarer

OK, fair enough. I don't agree with Bunge myself, on several key points.

The definition of a table describes tables. That's what a definition does. — Leontiskos

The Merriam Webster Dictionary definition for the word "definition"

And I quote:

1) "a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol."

2) "a statement expressing the essential nature of something."

3) "a product of defining."

4) "the action or process of stating the meaning of a word or word group."

5) "the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear."

6) "clarity of visual presentation: distinctness of outline or detail."

7) "clarity especially of musical sound in reproduction."

8) "sharp demarcation of outlines or limits."

9) "an act of determining. Specifically: the formal proclamation of a Roman Catholic dogma."

These are all options, mate. And they're collectively incompatible with each other, that is, they lead to contradictions if you accept all of them at the same time. Choose at least one. Which one of these Merriam Webster definitions is the one that is equivalent to your own definition of the word "definition"? You said "That's what a definition does". Does it? Refer to the previous list of nine options and choose at least one, then. I can't make that choice for you, mate.

@Wayfarer here's where the article gets it wrong, IMHO:

Behind the Blind Spot sits the belief that physical reality has absolute primacy in human knowledge, a view that can be called scientific materialism. In philosophical terms, it combines scientific objectivism (science tells us about the real, mind-independent world) and physicalism (science tells us that physical reality is all there is). Elementary particles, moments in time, genes, the brain – all these things are assumed to be fundamentally real.

Scientific materialism is not necessarily reductionist. Bunge's brand of Scientific materialism is emergentist, and literally so. An ordinary object such as a table is just as real as a quark. In fact, that very same table, is not identical to the plurality of elementary particles that compose it. It is a new thing, a new object, that emerges from them.

I'll admit this may be my own bias here. As my name suggests, I have a tendency towards thinking about liminality. I have just often wondered if the physical separation between bodies is as important as we think it is from our first person singular perspective. Things like quantum entanglement and hiveminds fascinate me, so I sometimes get a bit abstract with these things. — MrLiminal

Liminality is quite the odd state. The metaphor that I have for that is from Macedonio Fernandez. Imagine the state of waking up, but not fully rid of dreams. It lasts barely a second, maybe even less than that. But in that state, -the physical state of waking up from sleep-, some of the contents of the diurnal life are mixed with some of the contents of the last dream that you had before fully waking up. Now imagine if you were to take that fleeting state and make an entire literary genre out of that. I argue that this is precisely what Macedanio Fernandez did throughout his literary career.

Was he gainfully employed? — frank

My understanding is that he was. He taught Epistemology and Metaphysics at McGill University in Canada, if I'm not mistaken.

But better that you learn to fish. — Leontiskos

Just sell me the damn fish, mate. I'll "teach you to fish" some other sort of "fish" in return.

Use the dictionary yourself. — Leontiskos

Fair enough, but you're the one that chose Merriam Webster, not another dictionary. I myself would have made a different choice of dictionary, for example. Is that allowed, or do we have to refer to Merriam Webster in this Thread?

. Before writing a post claiming that "indescribable" means something like, "unable to be described forever," go check your claim against a dictionary. — Leontiskos

That's actually a very solid thing to say. Point taken, lesson learned.

Too much of this exchange has been you giving highly inaccurate definitions and me correcting these inaccuracies. — Leontiskos

Well... that's debatable. Again, in what "Room" are we? Is this "the Ontology Room", is it the "Linguistics Room", is the "Mathematics Room"? At what "level" of awareness are we currently discussing when you say something like that?

If you use words in an accurate way people will be much more keen to engage your thought. — Leontiskos

I agree. So, take the lead. What words should we use to reach a general agreement as far as the topic of Mathematical Platonism goes?

"Indescribable" does not mean "unable to be described forever." If that's what it meant then, by your own criteria, everything would be indescribable, and at that point the word would mean nothing at all. — Leontiskos

Then, for the sake of argument, I would say that there are only two logical options here.

1) Option one: you want to solve this problem (the dilemmas of Mathematical Platonism) in a purely "philosophical" way, or
2) Option two: you want to solve this problem (the dilemmas of Mathematical Platonism) in a purely non-philosophical way, i.e., with the language of mathematics alone. Perhaps even with the language of first-order symbolic logic (or perhaps something more exotic, like second-order logic, though I agree with Quine here, second-order logic is just "set theory in wolves' clothing").

Or you can just quote the definition of the word "indescribable", as the Merriam Webster Dictionary defines that word.

EDIT: Note to self: what Quine actually said is "in sheep's clothing", not "in wolves' clothing".

Well, this question confirms that the PSR is false, and nonsense. — Corvus

Well but it's an odd thing to talk about, innit? (Hold up while I put on my best "King's Slang", if that's even a thing). How on Earth could the Principle of Sufficient Reason be false? That just makes no sense to me. It makes no sense to anyone. And if the PSR is actually false, as you say it is, then what do we make of it? Can my table turn into a swan, for example? Can a squid pop up into existence in my living room? I mean, if there is no reason for anything, then literally anything can happen at any moment? How does that make even a sliver of sense, ey?

There is no reason on some facts. If you still insist that you need answer for your question, then what you will get would be an answer of tautology in nature - because your parents have given birth to you. — Corvus

And that is exactly the correct answer. Contrary to Quine, I don't exist simple because "something Arcane-Sandwich-izes" in the world. What would we be saying? That there is an object or creature in the world that "Arcane-Sandwich-izes"? What would what even mean, ey? I don't get it, it's impossible to understand as a concept, innit? And if for some reason (yes, I believe the PSR is true), then suddenly it turns into an odd thing to talk about, doesn't it?

Bunge doesn't sound like the brightest bulb in the pack. — frank

He was a stubborn man, from what I gather. And he had a great sense of humor. But yeah, he put no stock in modal logic. I'm not sure that I do myself either, but I do take the concept of "modality" somewhat seriously from a philosophical standpoint. I mean, how could I not? Contingency and necessity are modal notions, by definition. This is what Bunge struggled with, I believe. Or maybe he just didnt "buy it", he wasn't "persuaded" by it (again, it seems that he was a stubborn man).

What do I make of his intellect? I think he was a genius, really. At the level of Jorge Luis Borges. At the level of Willard van Orman Quine. I don't think we can deny him that prestige. Did he earn that prestige? I think he did. Is he right about everything? Of course not. There's even theorems that lead to contradictions in some of his more analytical works (like the eight volume of his Treatise on Basic Philosophy). But what I like about Bunge is that he believed, at the same time, in good common sense and scientism. He actually used the very word "scientism" in a positive, unabashed, unapologetic way. And that, quite frankly, is awe-inspiring.

If you didn't already gather this from my previous post, I think of myself as an expressed vehicle of communication by the whole. — Mapping the Medium

I did not gather that, no. I don't even know what you mean by that, honestly. What is an "expressed vehicle of communication", exactly? And what do you mean when you say "by the whole"? I think that the very concept of a "whole" is at the same time a mereological notion and a metaphysical notion. It's a concept that has "ontological import", if you will.

One aspect of Thirdness is 'habit'. — Mapping the Medium

Is it? Are you speaking of Thirdness as Charles Sanders Peirce understood it, as Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness?

The cascading events in gradient levels of consciousness are a current focus of neuroscience. — Mapping the Medium

See, I was somehow (I have no idea how) agreeing with you up until there (though I did not entirely understand everything that you said), but it's this last part that's the "deal breaker", for me (and I'm not even sure what I mean by that. Is this a situation of negotiation or not?).

You speak of "consciousness". I would speak instead of simple awareness. I have a theory about this (not that the mere fact of "having a theory" is proof of anything, it isn't). Here is my theory, it's quite simple. Consciousness does not exist. It's a made-up word. It fails to refer. There is no such thing as consciousness, it's not a Cartesian res cogitans. There is a res extensa (the brain), and then there is a process: a brain process, which we mistakenly call "consciousness". It's a process, not a thing. Think of it like this: Process Philosophy gets it right as far as the topic of "mind" goes, but it gets it wrong as far as the topic of "brain" goes.

You mentioned that you have no relationship to your table, but don't you? As effete mind, it still serves a purpose in your life. It is a sign of where you dine, where you work, the place and space it takes up in your home. Your memories of who gathered there with you. The time you bumped your leg on it and learned to be more careful. Someone designed it. Someone either built it or the machinery that crafted it. It carries all of that and more, and you choose to have it in your home. When others come to your home and see it along with you and your other possessions, the signs communicate to them more about who you are. — Mapping the Medium

That's an excellent point, and I never even thought of it that way. You're absolutely right, I agree with you 100% here. Maybe I would disagree on some of the aesthetic choices that you're making with those words, but I more or less agree with the underlying concept here. Even though I'm struggling to understand what that concept actually is, from a metaphysical point of view. Can you explain it to me as if I was an uneducated, simple person?

You are important on a grand scale, but you cannot be all that you need to be for that 'grand scale' if individualism is so nominalistic that it detaches you from the narrative. — Mapping the Medium

I don't understand this either. Can you explain what you mean here, in plain and simple English, and as objectively as you possibly can? Try to be as charitable as possible to my intellect here, I'm having a really difficult time understanding some of the more abstract notions that you are speaking about.

Hi @Wayfarer, can I join in on your Thread? Can I kindly request that you put me up to speed here? What is the "Main Thing" that you are currently discussing right now in this Thread, and how could I contribute, either constructively or "destructively" (de-constructively, if you will)? Forgive my fondness for plain and simple English, and for relying so heavily on intuition, valid sound reasoning, and good common sense.

Cheers.

The definition of a table describes tables. That's what a definition does. — Leontiskos

I think you're wrong. I would like you to quote the Merriam Webster Dictionary definition of the word "definition".

Of course it's not. You already described the object: it's a table. You could further describe it by giving its color. In no way is your table indescribable or inexpressible. — Leontiskos

I disagree, from a metaphysical standpoint, with what you just said there. I described my table, but I did not fully describe it (you agree with me up to here, yes?), I could indeed further describe it by giving its color (you just said so yourself), but I disagree with the following thing that you said. My table is in some way indescribable or inexpressible, because I cannot describe it forever. At some point, I will die. The table will still exist. At some point, humanity will become extinct. Tables will still exist, at least for some time. No one will be alive to describe them. So, they are indescribable and inexpressible in such a scenario (which, by all accounts, will actually, physically, happen in the future). The table becomes indescribable and inexpressible in the absence of beings capable of expressing what it is, in the sense of describing it, because such beings have effectively ceased to exist. One hand waving does indeed make a sound, a tree that falls in the forest when no one is there to listen does indeed make a sound, but there is no meaning in the latter scenario, while there is indeed meaning in the former: someone who waves a hand, and in the manner of Moore says "here is one hand, here is another hand, there are two things, thus solipsism is false" is arguing in a valid, sound way.

I've somewhat averse to rigid designators as a concept, so I'm not sure that if I would "side" with the Kripkeians here. That's not to say that Kripke has only produced trash, some of it is trash and some of it makes genuine sense. That's one of my disagreements with Bunge, he saw nothing but trash in Kripke's works.

"Table" is a common noun, so when you talk about your table you have already given a description. — Leontiskos

I think not, and allow me to tell you why I think that. The word "table" is a common noun, but the table in my living room is not a common noun, it's an ordinary object made of wood. And the noun "table" does not literally describe my table, it just defines what the world "table" means. And the Merriam Webster Dictionary definition of the common noun "table" makes no reference to my table, the one in my living room, so how could it describe it? It can't, therefore my table, the one that's in my living room, is indescribable by definition, if by "definition" we understand whatever the Merriam Webster Dictionary has to offer in relation to that word.

EDIT:

When you talk about your table we all know what sort of thing you are describing. — Leontiskos

But that's my point: you only know what sort of thing I'm describing, but you don't know what thing it is specifically, because it's my table.