they are "shown" by their relations to each other. So it's no surprise that examples are not listed... — Banno

So refer to Kant's transcendentalism? What is a philosophy that has no account of itself and starts in the middle and then says, "This doesn't matter"? This one does, I know. But then your language game isn't the same one I'm playing when I ask "What is a philosophy that..". It just wants you to accept it and that to me is just assertion.

At the end of the day, it is simply an internal minor squabble between Witty and Russell (and Frege). I don't see it as a major theory. The aphoristic type prose also doesn't lend itself to clear interpretation. It's like the Nietzsche of analytic philosophy.

The idea in the Early Wittgenstein is that we recognise elementary objects when we see them. — Banno

But this is the stuff of philosophy proper, not to be glossed over. His argument ONLY works if you believe the ontological framework. If anyone else just "started" and didn't explain why they started there, they would be called out. I don't see why he should get a pass.

I can predict a sort of response whereby you mention that he was demonstrating his own values whereby philosophy cannot speak of things that can't be pictured.. But BECAUSE it is the very basis for which the picture theory "hangs" (get what I did there).. it MUST be discussed otherwise, Witty garners himself right by way of never having to prove anything outside of what he himself is claiming. How convenient that works.. "I make a claim, but it would be 'nonsense' to refute its very basis". Again, real convenient.

ne can give an exegesis of the picture the text presents without raising the question of whether it is true or false, but if the exegesis includes the question of the truth of what is presented then it is not beside the point. — Fooloso4

Someone else has finally come full circle to my original critique. It’s this that is missing and makes it (at least on the face if it as far as I can see) not that interesting and lame duck, amongst other things.

There is a reality made of objects and their relation (bald assertion).

int main() {
std::cout << "Hello World!";
return 0;
}

Indeed, you may be right, unfortunately. The fact that very significant impositions are taken for granted as fair and just, possibly shows this mentality. It doesn't thus make the impositions acceptable. It just indicates that it is harder for most to get. Not a problem of soundness but epistemology. A blindspot in ethical reasoning perhaps.

Interesting that you say "super consequentialist thinking". What proportion of your views (if any) are consequentialist? Do you think it's consistent for one to have a general consequentialist outlook while also having overriding principles (such as sanctity of life, consent etc)? — Down The Rabbit Hole

I think politics can be consequential and doesn't necessarily reduce down to ethics proper. One can ponder ethics in governance, but that is different. Ultimately, it is the dignity of a person one is appealing to in ethics, and which is ignored when imposing unnecessary harms or imposing ones own criteria of what is an acceptable range of choices and harms onto another.

Consequences do matter (it is the impact of the choice of having a child that matters after all), but it is the idea of looking at consequences above and beyond the violating of the dignity of an individual which I have a problem with.

I view life as it is as a good; and life as it is includes suffering. Thus, suffering is ultimately good too.

I would distinguish between necessary and unnecessary suffering, perhaps. But that's a different discussion. — Xtrix

And that is the major difference in moral reasoning here.
I have said previously that unnecessary suffering is that which you impose on another person which did not ameliorate a greater harm for a lesser harm for that person.

Also this brings up my idea on where the line is drawn for what is permissible in terms of impositions allowed on others.. I would suggest reading my last comment on that as it directly relates to this notion as to what is permissible to do on behalf of others:

However, it's not even that claim I was discussing, but more about the nature of imposing life on another and when it's justified. Pro-natalists think that life can be imposed as long as X criteria of choices is involved and X criteria of harm is involved. In other words, they recognize that there is an "acceptable" amount of harm that someone else will suffer.

For the antinatalist, both of these claims are misguided. By its very nature, presuming for another that "these range of choices are good" is wrong. I call this moralistic misguided thinking "aggressive paternalism". It presumes one knows what is meaningful, best, or good for another, when in fact they may be ignorant themselves (if these are somehow "objectively" true), or simply, wrong (if they are relatively true and that person being affected just doesn't agree).

Also for antinatalists, presuming that it is permissible to allow the conditions for X criteria of harm is also presumptuous for another. Again, it is aggressively paternalistic to assume that X types of harm are acceptable for other people to suffer. These are flawed and misguided notions that someone else should arbitrarily, by their own reckoning, be the arbiter of what is acceptable in the range of choices or the range of harms that others should encounter. The sad thing is, there is no alternative for those who would disagree.. Only suicide and cajoling that, "This life isn't that bad!" and all the cultural pressures of thousands of years of optimism bias.

Also don't forget, there is unforeseeable harm as well as expected harm for the future person that would be born. The parents might have thought that only X amount of harm would take place, but there are other (perhaps more serious) harms that can befall a person that they didn't even expect and is regrettable. I'll call this a "known unknown". We know that there is unforeseeable harms for future people, so even though we don't know the specifics, we can understand a vague idea of it, and we know that it is a frequent occurrence. — schopenhauer1

When face to face with uncertainty and the future of children are precisely that, we must/usually assume the worst (outcome). Hence, antinatalism. This is a rule-of-thumb we employ every day in our lives. — Agent Smith

Yes it is. Certainly the larger argument might be something like, "We are not obligated to create happy people (if that person isn't there to be deprived), but it seems we are obliged to not create unhappy people (who may indeed actually exist)".

However, it's not even that claim I was discussing, but more about the nature of imposing life on another and when it's justified. Pro-natalists think that life can be imposed as long as X criteria of choices is involved and X criteria of harm is involved. In other words, they recognize that there is an "acceptable" amount of harm that someone else will suffer.

For the antinatalist, both of these claims are misguided. By its very nature, presuming for another that "these range of choices are good" is wrong. I call this moralistic misguided thinking "aggressive paternalism". It presumes one knows what is meaningful, best, or good for another, when in fact they may be ignorant themselves (if these are somehow "objectively" true), or simply, wrong (if they are relatively true and that person being affected just doesn't agree).

Also for antinatalists, presuming that it is permissible to allow the conditions for X criteria of harm is also presumptuous for another. Again, it is aggressively paternalistic to assume that X types of harm are acceptable for other people to suffer. These are flawed and misguided notions that someone else should arbitrarily, by their own reckoning, be the arbiter of what is acceptable in the range of choices or the range of harms that others should encounter. The sad thing is, there is no alternative for those who would disagree.. Only suicide and cajoling that, "This life isn't that bad!" and all the cultural pressures of thousands of years of optimism bias.

Also don't forget, there is unforeseeable harm as well as expected harm for the future person that would be born. The parents might have thought that only X amount of harm would take place, but there are other (perhaps more serious) harms that can befall a person that they didn't even expect and is regrettable. I'll call this a "known unknown". We know that there is unforeseeable harms for future people, so even though we don't know the specifics, we can understand a vague idea of it, and we know that it is a frequent occurrence.

In that specific case, no. I don't think it's a great analogy though. Why? Because we're talking about something much bigger -- we're talking about life. So what if the pizza were the size of the world? Would the fact that there was shit on it negate all of that pizza? — Xtrix

So I was thinking about this earlier.. People tend to think if you widen the playing field of choices you give a person, that this somehow justifies imposing a situation on them. So a lot of the disagreement comes into play in terms of how much choice is acceptable for imposition. Many (or most) antinatalists would argue that there is almost no amount of choice given to someone, as long as that set of given choices was imposed upon someone, that they have to make that is acceptable.

Thus, if you were imposed upon to having to like only one thing, only survive in one way, only listen to this or that.. You would maybe agree that this is not something one would think is fair to impose on another. You widen the "field of choices" out even more and there is a greater quantity of choices that your imposition has permitted for that person.. Well, then the pro-natalist might argue that the amount of choices given in a certain kind of life is enough choices that the imposition is now "fair". But the antinatalists are going to object that no, even those choices, (even if there is more quantity and diversity of choices), are not enough to fairly impose onto someone. The choice to not have to make any of those choices is de facto off the table. The choice to no follow any of the premises that "this life" has to offer is off the table. I had some threads a while ago about the idea of complying or dying. That is exactly the thing being imposed upon the person.. complying with what someone else thinks are the acceptable choices or .. well there's not much else one can do..

have said that they are in favour of not building but are opposed to destroying. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Antinatalism would not be true to its own morals.. I guess technically, it is agnostic to being based on consequentialism, but that is why I would not entertain that kind of super consequentialist thinking. I don't see the ground of morality based on such views. If you are a political lefty/socialist, does Stalin represent your highest ideals? Surely not. THAT'S not what you envision. If you are a Christian, does the Crusades or David Koresh or some nutball terrorist represent your highest ideals? My guess is no. There are extremes to any positions/beliefs/outlooks/worldviews etc.

Arguments for doing harm to others because joy is an outcome, do not negate the harm done to others. Eating an animal is harmful to the animal and for vegetarians, may be wrong no matter how much joy billions of people get from it. That's just one example. So many ad populum fallacies. You go back in time long enough, a lot of practices can be characterized like this. Colosseum sure entertained a lot of people. Bread and circus.. And the circus was often times deadly gladiatorial events, lions eating people and the like. I know you wouldn't find that appealing now. But people did like it.. People sacrificed their enemies and children to the gods for a good life.. Maybe not "joy" as much as they thought this would grant a better (or the good life). It was popular in those populations. Any practice can become outdated. If it's something that can be deliberated, it is mutable.

An existing person? Then yes, that existing person can have future states. — 180 Proof

No that’s not how our language works. Unlike Frodo baggins who can never exist, a child can if certain actions are taken. That future possibility is being not actualized due to the suffering that would occur.

A person who would suffer if you did X.

One ought to take into account the consequences for one's actions, and if the consequence of one's action is the birth of another individual, one should take into account that individual's behalf before one acts. — Tzeentch

Excellent point and also kind of speaks to my point to @180 Proof.

Why should the fact that many people enjoy their lives give them a right to impose it on others? — Tzeentch

Another point that I’ve been trying to make myself over and over. I call this idea of presumptive imposition on others “aggressive paternalism” and it’s a sort of attitude that one can and should make presumptive decisions for others as to how much harm is acceptable not to mention that they can’t predict unforeseeable harms.

I don't see the relevance of the distinction. — 180 Proof

Why not? Why wouldn’t you be able to not create an occurrence in the future that you know could happen to someone. Do you not believe in future states?

You are not worth discussing anything. You make poor arguments and have nothing of substance. You are a belligerent asshole that just poisons the well. Just make your pint. No need for the ravings in a civil debate. This is a philosophy forum if you can’t handle foreign ideas, pick a different hobby. You’re on ignore. Go blather to others. My patience is about done dealing with you.

So there is not now an actual person who warrants moral concern, but only some hypothetical / imaginary – nonactual – person like e.g. Frodo Baggins. :roll: — 180 Proof

So it looks like you are not making the distinction that I put forward earlier. See here again:

Already refuted that idea. There is a difference between something never being able to happen, and something that can definitely happen. — schopenhauer1

"unavailable for learning". — Banno

Indeed that is just your opinion. Show me the error of my ways.. I honestly don't care if it's coherence theory or not.. There was a "resemblance" there.. you can say something like coherence is the complete opposite of Wittgenstein because of X, Y, Z.. something with all propositions must be true or whatnot.. I was just throwing an idea out there that struck me at the time. Sometimes I play speed chess, so made a move to further that thought..

Anyways, besides things like language game, private language, family resemblances, etc. Is there any real content in Wittgenstein? Not really. He had an aversion to theory, so we really can't say he supported much other than language is imprecise and based on how words are used in a particular context. All of which by the way, are pretty common sensical.. It's like he was sucked into Logical positivism and then rejected it and found somehow this rejection as profound when most people are already there in their everyday thinking of language. It's like telling me shit that I already know. I gave you a much more elaborate version of what I thought above that you gave not much of a response to. Not agreeing with the profoundness of the conclusions shouldn't be grounds for hating on ole schopy.

However, if they will experience harms that must be prevented, they can also experience positives. I don't wish to start a train of repetition, so I shall stop here. I hope that you and the others here have been doing well. — DA671

Yeah I know your position, and yeah lets not make this a repetition. You can at least teach your adherent over there a lesson in how to debate without flying off the (fuckn) handle.

So not an actual person. No moral concern. No moral justification for antinatalism. Thanks, schop1. :up: — 180 Proof

You have not connected "no actual person" with "no moral concern". There will be an actual person. Yet, you never address that important point.

what W. meant by object and name, among other things. — Sam26

Did W know what he meant :lol: Maybe he built himself a nice private language :rofl:

At this point one will have a perfect logical language that sets out how things are by setting out the relationships between objects.

Is that a correspondence theory of truth? Yes. — Banno

I think he moves from a correspondence to a coherence view in Investigations. However, all of these terms are like counting angels on a pin for me. I'll engage, but why.. I don't know. I guess this language game is just one I don't play very much :wink: so I'll give it a go. But I'll go ahead and do a neologism (but not a private language thing) and say it's like "fuzzy coherence". Words rely on the uses with other words and the contexts of the uses, but they can never be defined perfectly once the context is known. It is always rough boundaries, not rigid ones for definitions.

I don't see why either if what you mean by "a person" is an actual person. — 180 Proof

I don't see what you don't see. A person does not exist at X time for Y suffering. But they will exist at X1 time for Y suffering. You know that Y suffering can be avoided at X1.

Tell me what you think warrants ethical concern.

To my mind, only an ACTUAL sufferer warrants ethical concern. — 180 Proof

If you know at time X present, a person does not suffer Y, and at time X1 in the future, a person will suffer Y, I do not see why ethical concerns don't count for X1 in the future.

those already born — 180 Proof

Already refuted that idea. There is a difference between something never being able to happen, and something that can definitely happen.

compelled by their (socio)biology — 180 Proof

Sociobiology here is a squishy term.. If you mean some sort of strict instinct, then you can reference my earlier post here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/717447

sufferers can thrive — 180 Proof

You think this is a justification for doing for unnecessarily putting people in harms way? And you can reference by what I mean by unnecessary.. but I'll give you it again..
1) It has to be on behalf of others...
2) Does not ameliorate a greater harm for a lesser harm (for that person being affected).

For Russell, the atoms are objects and predicates, and logical operators, a direct rendering of Frege's syntax.

For Wittgenstein, the atoms are relations between objects. — Banno

:yawn:

How would archaeology confirm or deny God talking with Moses? What would that even look like? — Moses

No proof of a phenomenon that has never empirically been verified except in ancient sources (or in claims from the Enquirer), seems a bit dubious to hang your hat on.

Maybe you're right, but mine leads to a happier life if I had to bet. That's why I'm not so much a philosopher anymore. — Moses

Understood.

I don't even know what proof would be. What would qualify as proof? I have no idea, I just have this beautiful dialogue. I don't even know what talking to God would be like. I'm just massively impressed with the Bible even if we can never confirm all the truth or claims written within it. We have confirmed some of the genealogy though, even as far back as Genesis. There's at least some truth in it, but a lot of it we'll never be able to confirm. — Moses

Granted. I mean, you are not going off the handle doing self-referential claims, so I can leave it at that. A lot of people do something like "The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true". You don't seem to be doing that.

By the way, I'm not trying to devalue what gives you hope or what not.. If these stories are important truths that help you, so be it.. Believe what you're going to, but this is a philosophy forum, so some debate, even on strongly useful and helpful beliefs, can be debated.. I hope you agree with me there.

At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter whether there's a perfect secular moral system (even it was "objective"). Even if there was, why should anyone care? Born from oblivion, pass to oblivion. Spend your time how you see best fit. Who am I to tell you how to live? I would say the same about religious frameworks if it were not for the fact that all get called to account before God according to Scripture. — Moses

It's not about the authors to me. It's about the bigger picture message. I'm mainly looking for bigger picture themes to extract. It's a truth-claim regardless of whether it was written by the Yahwist, Elohist or Priestly - the three authors identified. — Moses

Why are ancient Israelite authors/editors immune from making shit up like any other authors of ancient times? The stories themselves might be compelling as profound mythological-history.. But the mythology might be a large part in that history. Perhaps there was a "Moses"..Perhaps not.. Perhaps there was a real person for which these stories are trying to apply.. But the archaeology and non-Biblical historical documents don't conform exactly to the stories.

Perhaps it is compelling because it is simply the most "complete" and "coherent" mythological history.. Not so much with the Greco-Roman myths perhaps.. And the ethical commands that go with it are unique in that it is from a god, and not simply human reason. People take that for granted. But that is not necessarily proof that it is actually what happened.

IMHO the greatest affirmation of the dignity of the disabled occurs in a dialogue between God and Moses beginning in Exodus 4:10. I am disabled. Likely the same disability as Moses. I need a way to frame that, and my experiences/observations are simply not a sufficient answer to that question. Gotta throw in with God on this one. — Moses

How do you know that you don't just like the authors of Exodus (various others and editors that compiled it from various sources presumably), and not the actual events? Does that matter to you, or is i the usefulness of the literary devices that enamor you (plot, character, narrative, theme, etc.).

What moral implications does this fact have, according to you? — baker

That's the problem with a lot of what posters are doing here. Let's analyze this a bit by discussing three things that humans can do:

1) Needing water.
2) Needing to take a shit
3) Wanting to procreate.

For 1, if a human goes without water for too long, humans will die. Maybe you can last 3 days or so. Presumably, if the person finds water in a state of severe hydration (even if dirty) that person will immediately want to drink it to slake their extreme thirst. This might be considered a sort of instinct for hydration.. Probably less deliberative in this scenario. Under normal circumstances though, it would be pretty easy to decide not to drink water for short periods of time.. Maybe there's only hose water, and you decide that later on, you will go to the faucet to get a drink... Either way, even though you can usually control your thirst, you can control when and where you get your water. But you definitely NEED water, or at least hydration of some sort (technically you can live on little water, and on liquids like soda, tea, coffee, juice, alcohol, etc. as it has some measure of water in it.. even some foods).

For 2, if a human doesn't take a shit for too long, they will eventually die (after a while). But a human can control when and where they shit.. However, the need to shit is usually a very immediate need and will be very uncomfortable if you don't do it soon after you feel the pangs of needing to take a shit. So, this is another thing you can control, but is also very much something that makes one uncomfortable if one doesn't do.. but can control to some measure.

For 3, there is nothing that makes it such that if you don't do it, you will die. There is no immediate physical pain or discomfort.. If anything it is psychological for people who prefer to have a child. And sex itself can be controlled and certainly people exist who don't engage with it at all. It is not necessary for survival.. As I stated earlier, in humans, it is much more to do with existential notions, cultural practices, and personal preference.

Added more to that last post.

Well, no. Language can say lots of things that are not facts. I don't have a dog, for example, but I can use "My dog has fleas" in my posts.

The facts are those propositions which happen to be true. — Banno

Yep, my mistake.. I meant something more like "True propositions are limited to either all the atomic facts (actual states of affairs) of the world" The actual world is what is limited to all facts about the world", or something like that. In other words, prepositions that do not contain all the facts (or possible facts) about the world, are not true in some way. But my point was that this seems like a truism.. What ARE the facts of the world is more important and he provides none of that. You may say that is not what he is after.. but I guess I am critiquing that he is not after much.. It is a system, but kind of a lame-duck "So what" system (to me at least). The system would be more interesting if he provided for an actual way of obtaining the facts.. Everything else mentioned is like common sense that is simply defined more rigorously.

By the way, I think people might overlook his radical metaphysics here.. He seems to think everything in "the world" (that is real) are objects arranged in various ways. He completely obliterates this in his Philosophical Investigations, and creates a sort of agnostic nominalism that do not obtain to "facts" or "objects" but rather "use" and "family resemblances". So to me, he goes from one lame-duck uninteresting theory to another. Perhaps I just don't have much patience for philosophy of language, but it just seems like common sense ways of looking at things (but with no examples in the Logico-Tractatus even, though more examples in demonstrating his theory in Philosophical Investigations). The minor differences he is trying to show between himself and Frege and Russell and the Vienna Circle (if those be some of the major people he is trying to convince), are just again, minor and middling to me- like an uninteresting internal family squabble. Yes I get the backlash about appeals to authority on his great importance and influence, but just how I see it.. Maybe that would change, but so far hasn't changed.

I think the biggest thing people get out of it is his idea of senselessness of the logic form by itself, and the idea of nonsense for things that have no referent. For anyone where references to an object in the world are important for maintaining some kind of "concreteness", this theory seems to have a kind of obviousness to it; it just doesn't seem that interesting. It's like when someone says a pretty commonly held thing in a way as if it was profound. I don't know.. I can't place what it is.

His idea that one cannot really say anything of "sense" when it comes to ethics, values, and aesthetics, is something that cannot be discussed, is to me, not radical but simply the formal version of the common man's idea of "Well, that's just your opinion, man".

Anyways, he doesn't really prove much with his picture theory or his nominal family resemblance theory. And I understand that he is not interested in trying to prove more than what he thinks are "limits" and the wrongness he thinks in trying to do any real metaphysics or ethical expressions when using language to explain them.. But that just makes me think he is saying blah about blah. It's like a piece of computer code falling in love with its own limitation as simply a function that rearranges the binary code in such a way. This truly is the most uninteresting of uninteresting minutia.. and goes back to what I said about @Xtrix comment when I said:

Useful in developing computers, I suppose.
— Xtrix

If you only knew how much this sentence characterizes the state of modern humanity. — schopenhauer1

Just keep reading your exchange with DA671 He can save you!! :smile: — universeness

Ah maybe a sock puppet then

I will leave you with your ever-decreasing circles. — universeness

You are delusional. I don’t care about circles. You’re not on a mission. You’re not a white knight. Lay off the drugs (but do take your meds). Switch to decaf.

Go back and read your exchanges with DA671 — universeness

Are you like his Shadow in Jungian terms? You’re the same person Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde situation? :lol:.

Keep reading them until his logic finally lifts the vile fog of antinatalism from your sad life. He is a much friendlier human being than I and he was able to tolerate the BS you type without losing his patience. — universeness

Yep maybe you are his Mr. Hyde, or just a groupie.

Your antinatalism just bores me now. You are a little lost child. — universeness

I’m not here to bore or not bore you. Don’t reply or comment if you don’t have anything of substance to say about the subject, which you continually show, you don’t.

In other words, you can go around the merry-go-round with states of affairs, objects, and facts and propositions describing them, but I think there is a lot of nothing there.. Ironic, since he is trying to say that about "other" philosophy.

Facts are all around us. It's not difficult to find facts. There are many facts that haven't been discovered, but his aim is very specific. — Sam26

I think this is best illustrated if you give an example. What would a non-early Wittgenstein thinker make an error of and how would Wittgenstein respond to that?

Language is limited to facts of the world.. What are those facts? You can't just say "Well, they are all around us". WHAT are the facts? He mentions objects, for example.. Can that be the missing content here? Simple objects, etc.. A fact must be what is "true" of an object?

It seems like his "theory" (as described here) is a kind of truism rather than a truth. It makes sense that propositions can be true or false based on whether it is describing "facts of the world". The problem to me is that he never really provides how to find "facts of the world" which is the hard part. It is either taken as self-evident or something that cannot be stated.

Useful in developing computers, I suppose. — Xtrix

If you only knew how much this sentence characterizes the state of modern humanity.