That is nothing but your own mistaken and unnecessary assumption. — Luke

The assumption is that a type is a human creation, artificial. And, since only human beings know humanly created types, then to be be a member, token, of a type is a human judgement. Of course it might be a mistaken assumption,

'S' is the type of sensation. The recurrence of particular instantiations of 'S' had by the diarist are supposed to be the tokens of that type of "certain sensation". That's why the diarist is said to write 'S' every time the sensation recurs. — Luke

Back to square one, Luke demonstrates that he doesn't know how to read. How is "the sensation", as used four times in 258, in Wittgenstein's description of what it might mean to "name" a sensation, supposed to refer to a type, called "sensation", rather than to a particular sensation?

"The sensation" refers to both the type and its tokens. "Each different instance of sensation" is a token (that's what "token" means), despite you just having claimed that "the sensation itself cannot be the token". — Luke

You're missing the point Luke. If each instance of sensation was actually the token itself, then there would be nothing which differentiates one instance from another, and we'd have no basis for a claim that they are distinct tokens. Imagine if each instance of seeing is itself a token. Then each is an instance of seeing, and nothing more than seeing, and they are all identical, the same, as simply instances of seeing. It is the object, the thing described as seen, which forms the difference between distinct instances of seeing.

Now imagine if each instance of pain is itself a token. Then each instance of pain is exactly identical to every other instance of pain, as merely "pain", It is the described object, 'pain in my tooth', 'pain in my toe' etc., which provides the basis for a difference. Therefore the pain itself cannot be a token, as pain is a type, which is a judgement of the mind. So if there is a difference between one pain and another, the difference must be attributable to the source of the pain (just like in an instance of seeing), and this is something other than the pain itself. Differences within a type are attributable to distinct tokens. Therefore the token of pain must be something other than the pain itself (which is a type), and this is what is referred to in philosophy as "the object". If pain itself is a token, then there is no type/token distinction.

According to that logic, the same must also be true of external objects. — Luke

Yes, it's a conclusion which would hold for external objects as well, but it's only the result of the assumption that each encounter with the object, is an encounter with a different object (token), as you assume with sensations. This assumption of yours, implies that the object of the sensation, the token, only exists when it is being sensed. Therefore the object, the token, must be a creation of the act of sensing. (Unless it's due to some extremely improbable coincidence, which gives these objects existence precisely for the time that they are being sensed making it impossible to sense them at two distinct times).

But we do not commonly make this assumption with external objects. We assume that we encounter the same objects (tokens) multiple times, and they continue to exist while not being encountered. So it's not an issue for most common metaphysics. It only becomes an issue in a metaphysics like a "process" ontology, which sees things as constantly changing, therefore we do not ever encounter the same object twice: Heraclitus: you cannot step into the same river twice. In this type of ontology even the supposed "external object" is something created by the mind each time it is encountered.

Your argument is both that all tokens must be encountered and apprehended, but also that encountering and apprehending tokens implies that the mind creates them. — Luke

That the mind creates the token is the logical conclusion from your premise that each instance of sensation necessarily involves a distinct token. I have been arguing that the mind may encounter numerous instances of the same token of sensation. Therefore it is not implied from what I am arguing, that the mind creates the tokens. This is a straw man.

Why not then tests for voter competency? — tim wood

It's a move in the wrong direction. The issue which you are looking at is not a matter of uneducated people voting, it is a matter of apathy, which results in a significant portion of the population not voting.
The block of non-voters plays a much more significant role in any American election than the group of uneducated voters, who do not vote as a block. Any move to increase such a block, like your proposal, is anti-democratic and will not be well received. But a move to decrease the block can get oneself elected. The role of the non-voting block is an unobserved role, so it tends to go unnoticed.

You asked for proof regarding the type/token distinction. I can only refer you to the definition, otherwise I don't know what sort of proof you mean. — Luke

I didn't ask for proof regarding the type/token distinction, I asked for proof of your assumption that a person cannot experience the same token of a sensation on numerous different occasions, like we do with tokens of other types.

Yes, a duration of time is "more than one different time"; it is a period of time. A single token of a sensation also lasts for a period of time. What I am saying is that you cannot have the same token of a sensation twice (unless you can time travel and relive some period of time over again). — Luke

As I explained this is a problematic assumption. If a token of a sensation has temporal extension, and an inner experience can come and go from the conscious mind like a memory does, then why can't the the token of a sensation recur to the conscious mind numerous times, just like a memory does?

Since this claim of yours is so clearly problematic, I asked for justification. But you just kept reasserting it over and over again. Now you appear to have offered an attempt at justification, so I'll get on toward analyzing that.

Instantiations of sensations necessarily depend on our experience; instantitations of chairs do not. There are many chairs that exist without you ever encountering them, but there are no sensations that you can have without sensing them. This is why a token of a sensation is different. The instantiation of a chair does not require you to "encounter" or "experience" it. However, as I noted before, what they have in common is that chairs and sensations both have particular life spans of their existence/instantiation. — Luke

I think this expresses an ontological misunderstanding inherent in direct realism. A token of a chair is not a token of a chair without being encountered and classed as such. It was your choice to bring us away from Wittgenstein's words of particular things, to use the type/token terminology, now you cannot simply slip back without suffering the consequences. If both, the particular chair, and the particular sensation have been judged to be of a specific type, making them "tokens", then it's nonsensical to say that one of them might not have been encountered.

In case the preceding didn't make sense to you, here is the inverted argument, which may make more sense to you. For any occurrence of a "sensation" there is a thing sensed by the conscious mind, or else there would be nothing to qualify as "the token". The sensation itself cannot be the token because sensation is a type, and if we allow that there is variance in sensation, differences in sensation, then there must be an object of sensation at each different instance of sensation, to account for the differences, and this object is what we can call the token.

Now, your claim is that the objects of sensation, the tokens, cannot exist without being apprehended by the conscious mind (what you call sensing them). But if this is true, then the objects, or tokens, only have existence if they are being apprehended by the conscious mind, and this implies that the conscious mind itself, and only the conscious mind, creates these object, or tokens. They only exist because they are being sensed. This negates the characteristics of "a token", as the representative of a class or type, by allowing it to be any type. So you now propose a token "the sensation", which represents no specific type, because the conscious mind creates it every time that the mind encounters it, (as it is not really something found or encountered, it is something only existing when present to the mind, produced by the mind's presence), therefore the mind can make it of any type whatsoever. it is not a token of any type.

Such a thing, the object which can represent any type whatsoever, is not a token at all. And when you say "This is why a token of a sensation is different." , it is because you have described the "token of a sensation" as something other than a token. Are you ready to leave this type/token distinction as inapplicable to Wittgenstein's example of the private language, and proceed without it, or are you still insistent on using it as a crutch, which misleads you?

If the person is not consciously aware of the pain during some time, then they are not having any pain (not in pain), so there is no pain during that time. — Luke

Right, because "pain" here refers to what occurs to the conscious mind, having classed the object of sensation (the token) as that type, pain. But just because the mind is not actively classifying the object as a type, "pain" (i.e. the pain is present to the mind as pain), this does not mean that the token, the object itself, which gets classed as pain, is nonexistent. If the object (token) were nonexistent at this time, then that object would be completely created by the mind, as imaginary, or fictional, when present to the mind, and it could not be a real object, or a token at all, not having the necessity of representing a type, as explained above.

I suppose, but now you are no longer talking about "inner experiences" (and their instantiations) like we are with sensations. — Luke

What? You are going backward here. If anything, a memory is more properly an "inner experience" than a sensation is. Remembering something requires nothing external, it is a completely internal process, pulling something from the internal memory banks, and recollecting. It is as much purely internal as is possible. The "sensation" always involves something external to the conscious experience, the object of sensation, and this is why the act of sensation is so difficult to grasp, or understand. It straddles the supposed internal/external divide, Wittgenstein specifically, and intentionally, choose "sensation" as his example because it elicits that difficulty, through the ambiguity displayed by our disagreement. The object of recollection, memory, is clearly and unequivocally, something internal, when we remember something, we pull a token from the internal memory banks. But the object of sensation may be of the external type, as I've been arguing, or it may be of the internal type, as you've been arguing.

That's right, this is what tokens are about. Tokens of "inner experiences" are each unique instantiations that can be timestamped. This is why you are wrong to speak of there being more than one of "the same token". — Luke

I don't ever speak of there being more than one of the same token. That is your straw man. I speak of encountering, or experiencing the same token more than one time, as in the example of the chair. It seems to me, that since you believe that it is impossible for the same internal tokens to come and go from the conscious mind, each one maintaining its identity as the very same token each time it recurs to the mind, you represent this talk as if it is a case of talking about more than one of the same token.

But a person can simply name them as "the same token", too, and that is also sufficient criteria. — Luke

No, we cannot do that. Each token, by the fact that it is designated as a "token", is necessarily a token of all the types that it is a token of. So we cannot arbitrarily declare that it is "the same token" because there is correctness (criteria) implied by the fact that you are calling it a token. If we remove this criteria, the type/token distinction which you've been insisting on, we can get to the point Wittgenstein is making in the PLA. There can be no judgement of correctness to the diarist's use of "S". But "S" does not refer to a token, it refers to a particular thing which is judged to be the same thing each time it is encountered or experienced, and thereby named "S".

One place is at 987b:

Accordingly the material principle is the "Great and Small," and the essence <or formal principle> is the One, since the numbers are derived from the "Great and Small" by participation in the the One.

.. it is peculiar to him to posit a duality instead of the single Unlimited, and to make the Unlimited consist of the "Great and Small." — Fooloso4

At this point Aristotle explains how Plato differs from the Pythagoreans. Plato assumed a duality (dyad), of sensible objects, and ideas, as two distinct types. The Pythagoreans, Aristotle says, believed that all sensible things were composed of numbers, ideas,

Also:

For number is from one and the indeterminate dyad. (1081a through 1082a) — Fooloso4

Here is an argument against the notion that a number is an object. If two is an object, it must be a distinct type of object from the two units which make up the two parts of the two. This makes two a different type of thing from one, and three would be a different type of thing from two, etc.. But in mathematical numbers, each number must be the same type of thing. This makes two, if it is an object, and the rest of the numbers if they are objects, something different from what mathematical numbers are supposed to be.

I think it is important to note that these are Aristotle's arguments against various proposals as to what kind of existence numbers have. There is no direct reference to Plato here, and the points listed by Aristotle, which he argues against, could very well be straw man points.

Again, it must also be true that 4 is not composed of chance 2's. For according to them the indeterminate dyad, receiving the determinate dyad, made two dyads; for it was capable of duplicating that which it received (Meta. 1082a)

There is a good point made here by Aristotle. If a two is composed of two units, a three composed of three units, and four composed of four units, then these are all determinate, mathematical numbers. But fi two is itself a unit, then when four is composed of two twos, these two units are not mathematical units, because the four is only made up of two. And we cannot say what value these units have, so they are indeterminate. Two of these units together (these units could be numbers of any value) could produce any number whatsoever, hence two as an object is termed an indeterminate dyad.

Description can only go so far in providing for prediction. It used to be the case, that prediction was the means of validating the hypothesis (description), as the scientific method. Now, prediction itself is what brings in the money, so no one really cares about the description (hypothesis). And, the mathematics of probability is what enables prediction, so that's where the focus is.

Yeah, right, that would be ideal. We really should have done that right from the start, locked down all the infectious people, allowing all the healthy people to run where they please, and congregate freely. Then the virus would be confined, and soon eradicated as the infectious people either died or became noninfectious. But the disease is insidious, so we have to play the odds.

So why would you restrict their behavior but not the others? — NOS4A2

Aren't the unvaccinated about four times more likely to get infected? Whatever the statistics show exactly, it's just math and probabilities.

1.science has now been invaded by probability because it strayed away from causality. The probability coming from QM and relativity. — Caldwell

The invasion of probability is due to the reliance on mathematics rather than description.

Perhaps you could provide a reference as to where Aristotle refers to Plato's metaphysics as being concerned with an "indeterminate" dyad. "Indeterminate dyad " appears oxymoronic to me, as a "dyad" consists of two defined terms, and therefore cannot be indeterminate. I haven't come across anywhere where Aristotle refers to Plato's metaphysics as concerning an indefinite dyad. Maybe you can point me in that direction.

The term indeterminate dyad is Aristotle's. — Fooloso4

OK, if you want to switch to Aristotle's metaphysics, let's do that then. But why title the thread "Plato's Metaphysics"?

It is not that it cannot be determined to exist. The intelligible world of Forms is fixed and determinate. What is unlimited cannot be determinate. It is without boundaries. — Fooloso4

Aristotle demonstrated that "the unlimited", as prime matter, is physically impossible.

Something has been forgotten so thoroughly that we've forgotten that it's been forgotten. — Wayfarer

Hahaha. Once you forget it, there is no such thing as forgetting that you forgot it, because that would require remembering it, to remember that you forgot it, which is impossible if you've forgotten it. Talking about forgetting that you forgot it, is even sillier than talking about knowing that you know it, which is pretty silly in itself.

This is exactly what I am arguing cannot be done. There is no theoretical framework for a world that is indeterminate. — Fooloso4

That the world is indeterminate is not a Platonic principle.

Ultimately, there is neither ‘this or that’ but ‘this and that’. The Whole is not reducible to One. The whole is indeterminate. — Fooloso4

I will take issue with the term "indeterminate" used here. As Socrates describes in The Philebus, The combination of the two parts of what you call a "dyad", such as the limited and the unlimited, produces a balance, an equality, which constitutes an existing thing, a particular. I don't think there is good reason to believe that this equality is "indeterminate". Further, Socrates insists that there must be a cause of these instances of balance, or equality, and it doesn't make sense to say that a caused thing is indeterminate. Once a thing has been caused, it has a determined existence as the thing which it is.

Needless to say, they aren't going to get very far .... :smile: — Apollodorus

That though, is debatable. All that is required to dispel the nonsense is an extensive reading of Plato's material. However, this is not an effortless task, and the majority of people in our society approach with a prejudice that ancient writings are outdated, unscientific, irrelevant and unimportant. So, there is no inclination to make that effort, and these people (the majority of people in our society) will simply accept what others say as an appropriate representation. And those who say things which are consistent with that prejudice, which frees one from making the effort, will be the ones who are listened to.

Given that what separates the individual mind from the universal mind is the experience based on identification with the physical body and the thoughts etc. associated with it, we can see why Socrates (or Plato) advises philosophers to intellectually and emotionally detach themselves from the physical body and appurtenances, and inquire into the Forms with the pure unalloyed reason alone, when the soul is undisturbed, “itself by itself” and in the company of realities like itself (Phaedo 65c ff.). — Apollodorus

There is a distinct difference between the hierarchical priority described by you, and the one accepted by modern western culture. In western culture, we see material existence as first, prior, and from this, emerges a living body, and finally a human mind. The Neo-Platonist metaphysics places the universal Soul as first, prior, then the individual living soul, then the material body. So the modern western culture has completely reversed the hierarchy. The difference is that the Neo-Platonist metaphysics is based in solid principles, the metaphysics of modern western culture, by which the hierarchy is reversed, is not.

Look up the type/token distinction. It doesn't have a private meaning. — Luke

I didn't say anything about a "private meaning". I don't know what you're talking about here, and can only assume that you misunderstood what was said, unless you are back to your way of intentionally misunderstanding (straw man).

What do you mean by "the same token"? — Luke

I already went through this, when you accused me of changing the subject to talk about memories, and I replied to tell you that Wittgenstein is talking about "inner experiences" in general, and sensation is used as an example. Here; I'll reproduce it for you..

You appear to be missing the point Luke. If the same token of a chair can come and go many times, relative to my conscious experience, then why can't the same token of sensation come and go many times, relative to my conscious experience? One comes from ,and goes to; an external source which is outside my conscious experience, and the other comes from and goes to an internal source which is outside my conscious experience How could your memory work, if it wasn't the same token coming and going, to and from your mind, each time that you remember the same event? A memory of an event comes and goes from your conscious experience, coming from and going to some internal place. Why would you think that each time the memory occurs to you, it is a different token? If it was a different token, you would not remember it as the same event, it would occur to you as a different event each time. And if each time the idea of two came into your mind, that is the number two not the symbol, it was a different token, how could you do any mathematics? — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not basing it on an internal/external division; I'm basing it on types (classes) and tokens (instances of those classes). You are incorrectly basing it on instances of "encountering". — Luke

I fully understand the type/token distinction. I don't understand the basis of your claim that a single token of a sensation cannot be experienced (since you do not like "encountered") by a person more than one different time. Isn't any duration of time "more than one different time"? Obviously we experience the same token of chair many different times, and as I described the other day, it appears like we must experience the same token of memory, and the same token of idea, many different times. I do not understand why you think a token of sensation is different.

No, I'm saying you have sensations as an "inner experience". — Luke

If a sensation is an inner experience, just like memories and ideas are inner experiences, how is it that we appear to experience the same token of a memory many different times, and the same token of an idea many different times, yet you still insist that we cannot experience the same token of sensation a multitude of times.

Consider this Luke. You agree that a token of sensation has a temporal extension.

I will grant you this one point. It is possible for someone to have the same pain for several days in a row, and we might consider this to be a single token or instance of pain. Admittedly, I had assumed that the sensation 'S' was fleeting and was presumed to last less than a day. — Luke

Why do you think that it's not possible for the person not to be consciously aware of that token of pain during some period of its existence? So that particular token of pain could be existing somewhere in the subconscious, while the conscious mind is not at that time aware of it. Isn't this what we say about memories? The memory is 'stored' somewhere so that it is not always present to the conscious mind throughout the entirety of its temporal existence. Yet it must exist somewhere as that particular memory, or else the conscious mind would not be able to access it.

However, it may actually be the case, that each time a person remembers, or accesses the memory of the same event, the mind recreates the so-called token of memory. If this is the case, then it is not really truthful to say that it is the same memory, because it's really a new scenario created each time. Likewise with ideas, the idea of 'two' for example. If the mind must recreate the idea of two, instead of pulling that token of idea from a stored memory bank, then it is not really the same particular idea. Nevertheless, our language is such that we speak as if these tokens of idea and memory are the very same tokens, and this is the type of language use which Wittgenstein is bringing to our attention as something which renders "what a mathematician is inclined to say about the objectivity and reality of mathematical facts" in need of philosophical treatment, as the treatment of an illness.

I don't see why you say this is incorrect. As I said in my last post, it could be considered to be the same "particular" or token of the sensation both before and after one has slept or been unconscious. The problem is in remembering it correctly after waking up or regaining consciousness. Therefore, the problem can equally apply to tokens. That is, if you prefer to define a token, or a particular instance of a sensation, such that it includes a discontinuity in your awareness of it. We commonly refer to some pains in this way. — Luke

It is incorrect for the reasons I explained. If the person wants to say that it is the very same particular, a criterion as to what qualifies as "the same" is required in order that such naming can be correct. But if the person wants to name two distinct things as the same type, simply naming them as "the same type" is sufficient criteria for them to actually be the same type (270). That is because "type" is an artificial classification, we make the type and we name the tokens of the type, but particularity is not something we create.

The diarist can make up any criteria whatsoever as to what constitutes it being the same token both before and after the discontinuity. — Luke

But just like the chair, there is a reality, or truth to whether or not it is the same token, therefore a correctness to the matter. The point being that there is a valid question, is it the same chair or is it not the same chair, and we believe that there is a true answer. The true answer is establish by some criteria like temporal continuity, and the fact that someone could point to the whereabouts of that particular chair for the entire time period, to confirm that it is the same. If the diarist "can make up any criteria whatsoever", then the truth or falsity is circumvented, and as Wittgenstein says, " we can't talk about
'right'."(258)

On the other hand, if the diarist is naming distinct tokens of a type, he cannot ne wrong because he is creating the type: and it can be as he wants: "the hypothesis that I make a mistake is mere show."(270)

You seem to be confusing modality and temporality; not everything that is possible occurs in the future, but that is what is implied by your post. So I don't see what you propose hee as clarifying, so much as misleading. — Banno

You are conflating two distinct forms of possibility, and misleading yourself.

It depends on the token/type. In terms of sensations, "encountering a token" is a particular instance of having the sensation. Unless you can time travel and live that moment over again, then you cannot have the same token of a sensation more than once. — Luke

As I've repeated numerous times now, you've provided nothing to support this assertion. You are claiming two distinct types of tokens, ones which can be encountered numerous times and ones which cannot. But such a distinction needs to be justified, and as I explained many inner experiences like memories and ideas seem to involve encountering the same token numerous different times. So the distinction cannot be based in an internal/external division. You seem to be putting "sensations" in a category other than "inner experience", and other than "external object". And that doesn't make any sense.

I will grant you this one point. It is possible for someone to have the same pain for several days in a row, and we might consider this to be a single token or instance of pain. Admittedly, I had assumed that the sensation 'S' was fleeting and was presumed to last less than a day. Whether we call it a different token or not makes little difference, however, because the problem remains: how can you be sure that you are remembering it correctly as the same sensation after you have stopped sensing it for a while (e.g. after you have slept or lost consciousness)? In other words, are you correct to still call it 'S'? — Luke

OK, I'm glad we're finally getting to the point. Whether or not you believe it is possible to have the same token of a type of sensation on numerous occasions, is not what is at issue. What is at issue is that the private diarist is claiming this, and is claiming to mark down S every time the very same token of sensation occurs, "a particular sensation". Whether it is possible for the person to actual have the same particular sensation is not the issue.

The question Wittgenstein asks, is if the person might be correct in judging that a present instance is the same as a prior instance. And, he concludes that since there is no criteria which will tell the diarist whether it truly is the same or not, it doesn't make sense to even talk about the possibility of being correct. Again, the question of whether it's possible for the person to have the very same sensation on numerous occasions is not relevant, because what Wittgenstein has concluded is that it is impossible for the person to know whether or not it is the very same sensation anyway. So even if it is possible that it is the same, and it actually is the same, the person would not know whether it is the same, because the person does not have what is required to make that judgement.

It's the same problem if it were a different token. If you didn't have the sensation for a day or more and then it apparently returned, you could not be sure that you were remembering it correctly as the same sensation. — Luke

I think you need to rethink this, because it is not correct. If the diarist is judging the distinct instances, as distinct particulars, rather than as one and the same particular, the problem of a criterion of identity evapourates. The diarist can make up any criteria whatsoever as to what constitutes "the type". He can even say that they are the same type because he named them both S. The diarist may create the type. Simply naming them as the same type is sufficient criteria for making them the same type. This is what comes up at 270, once the diarist switches from trying to identify the same particular to identifying instances of the same type, there's no such thing as naming it wrong, because the type is determined by the particulars (tokens) which are named as being of that type.

May we say for the sake of accuracy if not sense itself that you are opposed to prejudicial discrimination? Or do you take your car for service to the tea shoppe, have your legal problems resolved by your house-cleaner, and your medical care handled by the boys loitering on your street-corner? Of course you discriminate. We all have to. And when the focus is properly turned to the prejudicial, then we have a different discussion. — tim wood

Those are examples of getting service from the place where that service is made available. They are not examples of discrimination based on education.

On the contrary, I see it as a diversionary tactic deployed by anti-Platonists who have run out of arguments against Plato and who insist on construing his teachings as somehow logically "incoherent" or "problematic". — Apollodorus

Yes, I think this is similar to what I was getting at. Casting Plato as someone who has made a pledge of secrecy to some sort of Pythagorean cult, is such a diversionary tactic, meant to to cast a shadow of ill repute.

I have thought about it, that's why it took me three days to reply. The thing is that I am not a strong proponent of democracy, for the reasons outlined by Plato in The Republic. The vast majority of the citizens in any society, do not have the education required to choose a good leader. So the politicians of a democracy behave like they are offering candies to children, for the sake of getting elected. Allowing the general population to vote produces a bad government. Therefore Plato thought that democracy was a corrupted form of government. My opinion is that we cannot fix the problems inherent within democracy by applying some standards of education by which we can distinguish a class of eligible voters from a class of non-eligible.

And regardless of what you think, I am not in favour of discrimination on the basis of education. This is because a person can only truly prove one's level of education in any particular respect, through one's actions. And to deny a person the ability to act, thereby prove one's education in that respect, because you believe that the person does not have the education required to carry out the act, is a form of prejudice. So if you want an educational test as to who can and cannot vote, you might as well just ask who the person would vote for, and if they make what you consider a stupid decision, deny them the right to vote, based on their education level.

Are you anti-discrimination? — tim wood

I am against discrimination on the basis of education. One's capacity to be educated is somewhat dependent on socioeconomic conditions so an individual's level of education is not completely a matter of choice.

While the notion has general use, it's metaphysics that is my main interest here. Stealing blatantly from my Rutledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, a realist may hold to things like that correspondence to the facts is what makes a statement true; that there may be truths we do not recognise as such, do not believe and do not know; that the Law of excluded middle holds for things in the world; and that the meaning of a sentence may be found by specifying it's truth-conditions. An ant-realist may in contrast hold that truth is to be understood in sophisticated epistemic terms, perhaps as what a "well-conducted investigation" might lead us to believe; that there can be no unknown truths; that we need include "unknown" as well as true and false in our logical systems; and that the meaning of a sentence is to be found in what it might assert. — Banno

The reason why this is a difficult subject, with a lack of consensus as to the nature of reality, is because we have a very deficient understanding of the nature of time. Time is the central issue here. If we view future events as having no determinate reality, they are merely possibilities, Then there is a difficulty in reconciling the future with the three fundamental laws of logic. Aristotle recommended that we suspend the law of excluded middle for future (undecided) events, but that's not the only possible proposal. One might say that the law of non-contradiction does not apply to future (non-existent) things, or even that the law of identity could not apply. The different ways of violating the three laws to allow for the appearance of an indeterminate future produces completely different metaphysics.

The form of metaphysics depends upon one's approach to this issue. In relation to events of the past, we find strong justification for the three fundamental laws, and this supports realism. So the realist wants to take the reality of the past, and extend it into the future (like the block universe for example), and to apply the three laws equally to the whole universe of past and future. The anti-realist sees this as wrong, and in a sort of overreaction, takes the indeterminateness of the future and argues this as a feature of the whole. As you can see, what is left out here is a description of the way that we relate to the present, and this is why there is a problem. Our descriptions of our own positions, at the present, are productions, artful creations, derived from the metaphysics of how we view the past and future. And since we have no way of describing the present which is consistent with either the realist or anti-realist perspective, we might produce an endless number of such descriptions, not one ever being completely acceptable..

Thanks for the link, but as soon as I read this "Plato, primarily as a proponent of Pythagorean philosophical doctrines,2 was very careful with what he did and did not reveal, being under an apparently severe oath of secrecy", I was really turned off.

Plato attempted to explain things in the most descriptive and explicit way possible. He has volumes of writings and founded his own Academy which did not charge admission. There is no oath to secrecy there. The idea that he was a member of some type of Pythagorean cult is nonsense

Thanks Wayfarer, I thought I was reading the thread, but I must have skimmed over, or forgotten that part. I'm going to express my opinion below.

In the Philebus Plato raises the problem of the “indeterminate dyad” . The limited (peras) and unlimited (apieron) is, as Aristotle called it, an indeterminate dyad. The two sides of an indeterminate dyad are dependent on each other. There is not one without the other. The two together are one.

The Forms are each said to be one, of which there are many things of that Form. The Forms and things of that Form are an indeterminate dyad, but the Forms are presented as if they stand alone and apart. There is, however, no ‘X’ without things that are ‘x’.

Each Form is one, but Forms are many. How many? In addition, each Form is both self-same and other. There is the Just itself and the Beautiful itself, but the Just is not Beautiful of the Beautiful the Just. The Forms themselves are an indeterminate dyad, same and other.

Becoming is supposed to be understood in light of being, things in light of Forms, the unlimited in light of the limited. Formulated in this way, the problem comes to light. How can the limited encompass the unlimited? When the many are reduced to one what it is that makes them many cannot be taken into account.

The Forms falsely represent the part as the whole. The undetermined as determined. The open-ended nature of philosophical inquiry as if it is completed and closed to further inquiry. — Fooloso4

I believe that what Plato expresses here in the Philebus, is a simple, or basic version of Aristotle's hylomorphism. Simply put, the "unlimited" is matter and form is the limited. In the world, we observe a combination of these two, particular things which are composed of matter (understood as inherently unlimited), and form, which is the limit. Existing things are a sort of balance between these two, and that balance Socrates describes as a third category. Then he proceeds to propose the need for a fourth category. The fourth category is the cause of this balance, the cause of the mixture, the cause of the existence of particular things which are each am individual balance, or equality within. He demonstrates why the cause, as the fourth category, must necessarily be conceived of as distinct from the third category , the mixture of unlimited and limited (matter and form).

I believe that this is an extension of the problem he addressed in the Timaeus. There he faced the problem of how a particular thing receives the precise form which it actually has. The "form" is conceived of as something general, a universal, or type. And it is obvious that in living things the form or type of being precedes and predetermines the type which will come from the seed or embryo. The issue which must be grappled with is that the form which appears to predetermine, is a universal type, but the thing which comes to be has a particular form, unique to itself. So there is an unexplained, and apparently unintelligible, gap between the universal form which is supposed to predetermine, and the actual form which comes to be, as a particular form.

Aristotle closes this gap with the concept of "accident". The universal form is somewhat deficient because it does not account for the accidentals. But this proposal creates a clear separation, a division between the two senses of "form". The form of the particular is necessarily unintelligible, due to this division, and this is due to the role of "matter" in the composition of the particular (matter being what is inherently unlimited). There is debate even today, as to whether accidents are properly attributed to matter or to the particular form, but understanding of this will only be produced by referencing what Socrates called the fourth category, the cause of the union between matter and form.

This so-called "fourth class" or fourth category is the point which Aristotle comes to by way of his cosmological argument as well. Matter provides the potential for substantial being, and it appears to be unlimited, it could be potentially anything. In actual fact, all the matter we encounter is limited, having a particular form. Our minds designate matter as unlimited, but material existence demonstrates that it is always limited. In other words every instance of material existence is as a particular form. This implies that there is a cause, a further type of actuality (beyond the actuality of material existence), which is prior in time (as cause), to material existence, to account for this fact that matter always has a form..

The indeterminate dyads. — Fooloso4

I studied Plato a lot, and never heard of an indeterminate dyad. What is it, like "matter" in Timaeus?

[

A token does not refer to how many times you see something. — Luke

For "every day" on which he has the sensation means more than once. He is not talking about a single instance which would be a token of the sensation. — Luke

So, which is it? Can a person encounter the same token more than one time or not? Or are you saying that a person can see the same token more than one time, but a person cannot 'sense' the same token more than one time?

The point I’ve unsuccessfully been trying to make is that Wittgenstein is talking about establishing the name of a sensation. This means not only establishing the name for a single token, but for a class of tokens, i.e., a type. Wittgenstein is debunking the idea that a name or word can be established in the way he describes. — Luke

And, the point I 've been trying to make (unsuccessfully it appears), is that this is a misreading. Wittgenstein proceeds from a brief description of a problem which concerns the lack of a criterion of identity, to ask how do we talk about our inner experiences, and then provides an example of naming a sensation.

There is no talk here about a class, or a type, or tokens of a type. You are apparently approaching what he says with this preconceived notion that he is going to talk about a type,, and this influences the way you are reading him. If, in the end, it turns out that he successfully proves that a word or symbol cannot be used in a certain way the that way he is demonstrating in his example, then we can walk away with that conclusion. However, we need to follow the demonstration through, and understand it as it is presented, to see what it actually does demonstrate, rather than interpreting the writing in relation to a foregone conclusion. When there is ambiguity in the words used (as there always is to some extent, especially in philosophical writing), the latter is very conducive to misreading. This is a danger which is amplified by reading secondary sources prior to the primary source.

You appear to have the preconceived notion that language cannot be used without rules. So when at the end of 258, Wittgenstein says that there is no right or wrong in relation to the diarist's use of S, you conclude that a word cannot be used in this way. That's a faulty conclusion though because your preconceived premise is unstated and unsupported.

The “proof” is that it is assumed by the scenario that the diarist writes ‘S’ “every time”, for each token or instance of the sensation. What prompts the diarist to write ‘S’ is the recurrence of the sensation. — Luke

Clearly we must dismiss such a proof as contrary to the evidence. If what you claim as "proof" was true, then every distinct time that I see a chair, it would necessarily be a different token, and it would be impossible that I could see the same chair (token of the type chair) twice. I do see the same token, the same chair, on a multitude of distinct occasions, therefore the evidence disproves your supposed "proof", and what you claim as proof must be rejected as invalid.

On the other hand, I have cited further context to support that he means a particular type. — Luke

Of course that's BS. It is I who have cited support. In all your great capacity to quote Wittgenstein (which I admit is absolutely fantastic), you've come up with nothing except support for what I say: . That's because there is no support for your position, it's a misread based in a preconceived notion. All I have to do is point at 258 where Wittgenstein uses "the sensation" four times to stress that he is talking about a particular sensation rather than a type. Why would you use "the chair" when referring to a chair, if you were talking about a type rather than a particular chair? There is no evidence to support your claim that the diarist is naming a type.

The type/token distinction is used to clarify the distinction between a particular class and its instances, so it is senseless of you to question which instances belong to which class. — Luke

That is utter nonsense. You are saying that it is senseless to question whether an object (token) has been wrongly classed. If it was senseless to do such questioning, I could present you with absolutely anything, and claim it is a token of absolutely any class, and you'd say that it's senseless to question this.

This is what comes up at 261 now. " 261. What reason have we for calling "S" the sign for a sensation?
For "sensation" is a word of our common language, not of one intelligible to me alone. So the use of this word stands in need of a justification which everybody understands.—"

In the private language "S" stands for an internal experience which the diarist has identified and named as S. In the common language "sensation" is a type. Now the diarist must justify that the thing referred to by "S" is a token of that type.

Because it isn't the same token of the sensation, obviously. If you have a sensation and it goes away, then it's not the same token of the sensation when you have it again. — Luke

Where is your proof? You continue with this unsupported assertion. If I see a chair, and someone takes the chair away, then brings the very same chair back, obviously it is the very same token. Would you assert that because it went away and came back, it is obviously not the same token. Your assertion, that if a sensation goes away and comes back it cannot be the same token, makes no sense because it is completely unjustified. I get a pain in my toe sometimes at night, I can get it many nights in a row, or some nights I don't get it. It wakes me up when I'm sleeping. I cannot see what causes it to come and go. But the fact that it comes and goes does not give me reason to claim that it is not the same token of the type "pain" every time it occurs .

You have changed the subject to talk about memories. — Luke

Wittgenstein is talking about private experiences in general. 256: "what about the language which describes my inner experiences and which only I myself can understand?" He uses sensation as an example. If what you assert about sensations is only true about sensations, and not true about other inner experiences, such as memories and ideas, then sensation would not serve as a good example of inner experiences. Obviously, Wittgenstein has chosen sensation as a good example of inner experiences, so he surely is not expressing what you are asserting, as you seem to be admitting that what you are asserting about sensation, does not hold for other inner experiences.

That could be either a particular token of the sensation or a particular type of sensation. Unless you can provide an argument for why 'S' must be the name of a particular token of the sensation (only), and not the name of a particular type of sensation, then stop mindlessly repeating this. — Luke

I don't need to provide an argument, it is what Wittgenstein explicitly stated, "a particular sensation". You are fabricating something else, that Wittgenstein is talking about a type of sensation rather than "a particular sensation", so it is who who needs an argument to show that your interpretation which switches in "type" for Wittgenstein's "particular" is consistent with what Wittgenstein intended to demonstrate, and not a category mistake. All you have is repetitive assertions, that Wittgenstein could not have meant anything other than the interpretation which you've fabricated. But I've shown very clearly how he could have intended exactly what he stated, a "particular", not a "type".

You said there was no problem with naming a token! But there is a problem with the diarist scenario, right? — Luke

No, there is no problem inherent within the diarist's scenario. the problem arises when the diarist wants to justify the use of "S", to the public.

An instance of a sensation or an instance of a chair is not how many times these things appear to your consciousness or your memory, or whatever rubbish you are spouting. I already explained to you that a token or an instance of these things is their entire existence or "lifetime". It is one unit or one instance of a class of objects, which is what 'S' denotes with regards to a sensation. The word "sensation" does not apply to one token only; it applies to a class of objects - a type. — Luke

Sure, but "S", as Wittgenstein uses it, does not refer to a type of inner experience called "sensation", it refers to a particular sensation, a single token of that type of inner experience called "sensation". And if my tooth-ache goes away and comes back, depending on drugs sleeping, internal conditions, etc., all these reoccurrences are part of the "entire existence or 'lifetime'" of that one single token of sensation, my tooth-ache.

I said it was senseless to question whether two distinct tokens are of the same type. — Luke

How is this senseless? Every object is a token of some type or types. Why would it be senseless to ask what type is that object a token of? It seems it's who who misunderstands the type/token terminology. You are just requesting that we use it, even though Wittgenstein did not, because it provides you with sufficient ambiguity to create the confusion required to make your fabrication look acceptable.

. Sensations typically have a duration; they start and end, or come and go. A particular instance or duration of a sensation is a token of that sensation. Like the chair, the token of the sensation is a single (instance/duration of the) sensation that can only be the same as itself. — Luke

You appear to be missing the point Luke. If the same token of a chair can come and go many times, relative to my conscious experience, then why can't the same token of sensation come and go many times, relative to my conscious experience? One comes from ,and goes to; an external source which is outside my conscious experience, and the other comes from and goes to an internal source which is outside my conscious experience How could your memory work, if it wasn't the same token coming and going, to and from your mind, each time that you remember the same event? A memory of an event comes and goes from your conscious experience, coming from and going to some internal place. Why would you think that each time the memory occurs to you, it is a different token? If it was a different token, you would not remember it as the same event, it would occur to you as a different event each time. And if each time the idea of two came into your mind, that is the number two not the symbol, it was a different token, how could you do any mathematics?

What is assumed in Wittgenstein's scenario is that the diarist will write 'S' in their diary for each instance or token of the sensation. — Luke

You are still refusing to acknowledge Wittgenstein has explicitly said that the diarist is naming a "particular sensation" (270), therefore the very same token. He says absolutely nothing to indicate that the diarist is naming a type. This fabrication of yours is misleading you, causing you to misunderstand, and miss the whole point of the example, the criterion of identity What happened to "let's suppose you are right..." , and proceeding from there? we didn't get anywhere because you just jumped back to your old fabricated reading.

First, it is impossible to have two of "the same token", by definition. — Luke

I'm not arguing "two of the same token". I am arguing that the same token can occur to the conscious mind, two, or a multitude of distinct times. This is extremely common in the case of external things. Yet you are insisting that in the case of internal private things this is impossible. But you have provided absolutely no justification for this assumed difference, only repeated assertions.. I have provided examples of when we commonly speak of the very same internal private token, recurring to the mind a multitude of times, the tooth-ache, and the ideas, or concepts of mathematics. Now I offer you memories as another example.

Second, tokens are of the same type, by definition — Luke

False. a "token" can be a token of any type. I am only using "token" as a term here instead of "particular", "individual" at your insistence, because you do not seem to have the capacity to understand this subject by other terms. But I'm not going to allow you to redefine terms as we go. Many different types of tokens occur to a person, and the person must decide which type they are tokens of. You are just spouting nonsense to insist that two tokens must be of the same type. If this were the case then there would only be one type, because all tokens would necessarily be of the same type.

It is sensible to question - as you did earlier - whether it is the same type of chair that only looks similar to the one you saw here yesterday, or whether it is the same token of chair - in fact, the same chair - that you saw here yesterday. This is how the type/token distinction can help to clarify the matter. — Luke

That is the very question which Wittgenstein asks. Why would you think it is senseless to determine the identity of a particular token? Suppose you and I have the very same "identical" chairs, the same type. Yet mine has five times as much use, so it is weaker and more worn. Why do you think it's senseless to distinguish which token of that type is which, which is mine and which is yours? Would you readily trade? What if it was something more valuable like a car. Would you trade yours for one of the same type with five times as much distance on it?

My access is not the issue. — Luke

Of course access is the issue, that's what makes the private language "private". How can you say such a thing and claim to have any understanding of the PLA? If it wasn't the issue why make an example of a "private language" in the first place? It's the beetle in the box thing, you can't see into another's box.

To say that you can't vote if you don't have high school equivalence is discrimination based on education.

Pass good for life. — tim wood

Why good for life? What about the senile old agers with dementia, don't you think we should discriminate against them as well?

The list of unknowns, innumerable. — Banno

You mean the unknowns have been listed? Are you sure of that?

But maybe it's time - long past time imo - for voters to earn the right to vote by passing a basic test. — tim wood

How can you think that such discrimination could be democratic? We'd have a 'democracy', but only those who pass a specially designed test would be allowed to vote. What would that test consist of?

What is supposedly being named is a type of sensation, not a token of the sensation. That’s my point. — Luke

Well we're right back to the same point. I thought you said "Let’s suppose you are right and that Wittgenstein is talking only about a single particular token of the sensation." Under this premise, what is named as "S" is a single particular token. You are completely unjustified in saying that it is a type of sensation being named. If the person was wrong in the naming practice, in your judgement, because you think that it's impossible that two distinct occurrences could be of the same token (an opinion which of course is disproven by the chair), and the two occurrences are actually different, being different still doesn't make them the same type. And you have no way to judge what is being named as the same type, because it's private. You have two unjustified assumptions here. First that it's impossible that the same token could appear to a person at two distinct times, and second, that two distinct tokens must be tokens of the same type.

Likewise, the sensation the diarist had last week and the sensation the diarist has today are different tokens and are both named ‘S’ because they are (seemingly) the same type of sensation. There is nothing nonsensical about this. — Luke

There is nothing nonsensical, it's just a completely unjustified conclusion, doubly so, as explained above. First, the two occurrences might very well be two occurrences of the same token. I can see the same chair last week and this week. Why can't I have the same sensation last week and this week? Second, and this is a significant point to the PLA, if you assert that the person is wrong in naming it the same token, because you insist that it must be two different tokens, then you have no capacity to judge the two as the same type, having no access to the person's private inner feelings which are being named.

To make your point, you need to ask the diarist to justify his judgement of "the same". And that's why Wittgenstein takes us to the device which reads blood pressure as an example of justification. But then the person's sensation becomes irrelevant, and the symbol signifies a rise in blood pressure instead. And if the diarist argued that there is a corresponding sensation, which is always "the same" sensation, you could argue that it is just the same type, the type which causes the blood pressure to rise. But this only a feature of the justification, which makes "rise in blood pressure" the definition of "S", and the sensations which the diarist refers to are judged by you as the type which coincide with the rise in blood pressure. You still wouldn't know for sure that they weren't the very same token occurring at a different time, like the chair.

This is correct. I could be picky and say that it is not possible for a sensation to be "the same" in the sense of being the same token you had before. A different token of the sensation that seems identical to the previous token is supposedly what would prompt the diarist to write 'S' again. — Luke

Right, but the diarist believes that the sensation is the very same what you call "token". That's why it receives the same name. It's not a type being named, it's the sensation itself. If the diarist believed that it was a different token it would be nonsensical to give it the same name. because the diarist is not naming a type.

That's right. So I take it you no longer view what Wittgenstein is trying to do with the passages on the private language argument in this way: — Luke

I don't see why you're saying that, I still see it the same way. I just refer now to the sensation which is named as "a token", to suit your way of speaking. The diarist (Wittgenstein) is marking the recurring sensations as the very same token. It is only you who is judging that they are different, and that somehow there is "a type" involved here.

So I have a sensation and write ‘S’ in my diary. How is this problematic? — Luke

That is not problematic. What's problematic is the criterion by which you say that the next sensation is the same sensation. It's just like the example with the chair. How do I know it's the same chair, or just a different one which appears to be "identical"? So when the second occurs, you judge it as "the same" ,and this is why you call it by the same name, but the only real reason for it being the same is that you have called it the same.

But Luke does not believe that it is "the same", as you've argued. And I agree with you, that it really is not the same. So, if the only thing which supports the second occurrence being named with the same name as the first occurrence is your belief that it is the same, and you really do not believe it is the same, then this use of the symbol is just a sham (260 - the note has no function whatsoever). You could call anything "S", the decision might be totally arbitrary.

The tricky part to understand is his move toward "a justification which everybody understands", at 261. This need, for such a justification is produced when he introduces a common (public) word , "sensation" to replace "S" (private symbol). How can we say that "S" refers to something which is "a sensation"? At this point the private word "S", has to get introduced into, integrated into, the public language, so its use need to be demonstrated (justified). .

That is, I presume it is a different token of the sensation a week later and not the same token of the sensation that you have had continuously all week, otherwise there would be no need to question whether it was the same. — Luke

That is what you presume, But it is not what Wittgenstein was saying. He is drawing our attention to a way of speaking in which we refer to internal, "private" feelings, sensations, and even ideas, as individual, particular things, like objects. That's why "S' refers to "the sensation". I refer to the recurring pain in my tooth as my tooth-ache, a particular thing. We refer to the recurring idea which is associated with "2" as the number two. This is what Wittgenstein is questioning, this way of speaking. The example he produces where "S" refers to a particular sensation is an example of this way of speaking

I'll refer you back to what Banno said near the beginning of the thread:

↪Luke A common philosophical error is to assume that a grammar implies a state of affairs. In the phone example, the similarity of grammar is taken to imply that pain is some sort of individual, or thing, and so leads to questions of observation and identity and so on, all of them misplaced, all of them the result of not noticing that the grammar hides a distinction.

@Metaphysician Undercover in particular makes this sort of mistake often and repeatedly, but doesn't see it.

We do use language to refer to pains and to phones. But pains are quite different to phones. Paying attention to the difference allows us to identify and explain certain philosophical errors - — Banno

I agree with you both, Luke, and Banno, that this is not a very good way of speaking. It would be better to refer to such inner experiences as types or something like that as Luke suggests. However, this way of speaking abounds, and it is this way which Wittgenstein is demonstrating with "the sensation", that is named "S". He is talking about the sensation as if it is an individual, some sort of thing. And he is talking this way deliberately avoiding calling it a type, or anything like that, to demonstrate the problems involved with talking this way. Look at 270 again Luke:

And what is our reason for calling "S" the name of a sensation here?
Perhaps the kind of way this sign is employed in this language-game,—
And why a "particular sensation," that is, the same one every time?
Well, aren't we supposing that we write "S" every time?

Obviously he is not saying "a type" of sensation he's saying "a particular". What justifies that "S" refers to a particular sensation? Nothing but the way S's use in the language-game, "S" is used that way. The sensation referred to by "S" is one particular sensation (not a type), because that's what we say it is by naming it this way. What justifies that "2" refers to an individual thing called a number, nothing but the language-game. The idea referred to by "2" is an individual, particular thing a number, because we use "2" this way.

Now look back at 254- 255:
"Thus, for example, what a mathematician is inclined to say about the objectivity and reality of mathematical facts, is not a philosophy of mathematics, but something for philosophical treatment.
255 . The philosopher's treatment of a question is like the treatment of an illness."
Wittgenstein sees this way of speaking, which refers to features of our inner experiences as individual things, as an illness which needs to be treated.

EVERY TIME implies more than one time. A token occurs only one time, so W cannot be talking about a singular token of the sensation. If he was talking about a singular token then the diarist would make only a single entry of ‘S’ in their diary, but W says “we’re supposing, aren’t we, that we write “S” every time.” EVERY TIME. — Luke

You don't get it Luke, Wittgenstein is not talking about types or tokens. "Every time" is clearly meant as every time the person has the sensation, just like every time I see the chair. The same chair, occurs to me many times, and it is only one token.. Therefore your claim that a token only occurs one time is false

He never makes that type/token distinction anyway, so I don't see why you're bent on applying it. . You are trying to apply that distinction to what he has said, and this misleads you because it is not applicable.
There is no "type" mentioned.. The result is a misreading. He is not talking about a singular token of a type of sensation, he is talking about "the sensation", as a named thing. How can you not apprehend this? Why must you apply this type/token conceptual structure when he makes no reference to it, or even implies that it is relevant.. You need to take what is written, as it is written, and quit trying to apply some type/token bullshit which is totally inapplicable.

He talks about criteria of identity (253 -256), then asks what it means to name a sensation (257), then he proceeds to describe the problems involved with this, trying to name a sensation (258-270).. There is no type/token distinction made. you are fabricating.

Do we at least agree on what is very clearly stated at 257, that he is talking about naming a sensation? If so, how do you jump from "naming a sensation" to "naming a type of sensation". This change is unjustified and is a clear category mistake.

In case you don't understand the type/token distinction, "the same one every time" implies it is the same type of sensation every time. A token of the sensation is a particular instance of having that (type of) sensation on one of those occasions, or at one of those times. — Luke

I'm fully aware of the type/token distinction, and as I said you are incorrect. You didn't seem to notice that he says "a particular sensation", which is the same one every time. I hate to have to inform you of this Luke, but "a particular sensation" can in no way be interpreted as a number of different tokens indicating a "type of sensation", unless he qualifies the statements as "a particular type of sensation". He never mentions "type" of sensation. He talks about naming a sensation, and then refers to it as "the sensation" "The same one every time" refers to "the sensation", a "particular sensation". There is absolutely nothing to indicate that he refers to a type of sensation. You are simply fabricating this idea. You're wrong in your interpretation because it is based in your own fabrication, not in what was actually said. And I've tried to help you to understand what Wittgenstein is actually saying, but you refuse to be helped. I'm not surprised, you've demonstrated your helplessness many times.

I'm mystified as to why you come in these Wittgenstein threads, especially given that you see through the "sham of Wittgenstein." I'm genuinely curious, are you trying to convince us of your particular interpretation? You seem to be privy to some special knowledge of W. that none of us possess. I know I create these threads because W. really interests me, and sometimes I get new insights into his thinking. Sometimes I even revise my interpretation because my interpretation is just incorrect. — Sam26

I enjoy Wittgenstein's little word games, they make you think. I call his games a sham, because that's what they are a pretense. He pretends to be saying something which he is not saying, so one must be very careful to determine what he actually says. He intentional states things in ambiguous ways to trap people within their own preconceived meanings for words, meanings which are inconsistent with the way that he is actually using the words, leading people into traps which he has carefully laid. I call it a form of hypocrisy. What he is doing with the words is not the same as what the words mean to us. That's the basis of dishonesty and lying. When a person lies to you, what the words mean to you is something completely different from what the person is actually doing with the words.

So, you might say he has led me into a trap, and I would say that he has led you into a trap. However, as I disclosed to Banno above, my way has led me toward a vast problem involving identity and the Platonism which inheres within mathematics today. This is the illness which Wittgenstein mentions at 254-255. All I see from your way is a never ending argument as to what Wittgenstein really means, therefore a dead end.

When I use "the" in front of the word, in normal conversation, such as "the hammer", "the chair", as Wittgenstein does with "the sensation", I am referring to a particular thing which has been named by the word, I am not referring to a type.

In none of the references I have read in the subsequent discussion has the 'noble lie' been said to describe the arguments for the immortality of the soul.

Is it argued elsewhere that these arguments in the Phaedo and Meno can be taken to be examples of a 'noble lie'? — Wayfarer

I think that because the precise nature of "the noble lie" is not well established by Plato, it is just sort of allowed for in principle, through mention, this inclines people to judge anything in Plato which they think might be a dishonest representation (even if this determination might be produced from misunderstanding), as "the noble lie".