I was referring to the definition of property dualism that I quoted above from the IEP :

""Property dualists argue that mental states are irreducible attributes of brain states. For the property dualist, mental phenomena are non-physical properties of physical substances."

In this context, what does it mean to distinguish the non-physical from the physical? What is being separated?

Reading the full argument prompts me to observe that responsibility as something that we practice every day has less to do with "making one the way one is, mentally speaking" and more to do with trying to influence other people, events, and the condition of things. Our influence can change outcomes in that regards but usually not in a way that we can own as coming only from our will. As Taoism observes, it can be the result of disowning events.

We do not apprehend the “red,” “apple,” or “five” as separate concepts when they’re uttered in the manner given. — I like sushi

I read that line as saying we are not checking if the words correspond one to one to "objects" as they are represented in the Augustine quote. Their "separateness" is a different matter. The point of the statement being to observe the practice of "checking" in this matter to other possible ways to understand what is being said.
Wittgenstein is trying to get us to think about the matter as an assembly of habits.

If it is true that "human disposition is an attribute of brain states", then there doesn't seem to be any purpose to maintaining a dualism. Nothing is just dumb unformed matter any longer.
Using an "idealist" model may be useful for some things but this sounds like a misuse of it.

You seem to be thinking that things are beautiful independent of an individual's assessment. I don't agree with that. "Beautiful" is one of the terms we use to describe things that appeal to us. — Terrapin Station

It is a term we each apply to what appeals to us. But "beauty" is also something that happens to each of us, an experience that can be compared with other peoples' experiences. One could agree with your statement as a matter of judgment but not think you have exhausted all there is to be said about it.

Thanks for that text. It completes the thought I was trying to have.

I particularly like this part:

My infancy did not go away (for
where would it go?). It was simply no longer present; and I was no longer an infant who could not speak, but now a chattering boy.

It resonates with Wittgenstein's examples of learning a language.

The US military and US industry were joined at the hip post WW2. It would be odd if there were no cross pollination. I may have overstated, though. My info is anecdotal. — frank

There certainly was cross pollination. Eisenhower was warning about their integration and he had been in enough places to see the depth of it. I am only contesting the claim that the culture comes from a single source.
It should also be noted the "Prussian system" was not created ex nihilo but came out of responses to many forces, not the least of which was having their hind parts kicked by Napoleon. Napoleon's use of a citizen army was only possible because of the social structure that came before him. And so it goes until we find the first chicken and egg.

What's your association with product management, if you don't mind my asking? — frank

One of my jobs is project management. I learned it initially through working in construction as a part of taking on responsibility for site supervision. When I started to learn planning as a discipline in itself, I became increasingly aware that the industry methods being used had their own genealogy.

Familiarity with military life coupled with an interest in history. Prussian military organization was consciously adopted. It's a tool for managing a large operation. It was adapted to American industry by people who saw its advantages while serving in the military. — frank

It is true that the model of the General Staff developed by the Prussians was adopted by the U.S. military in the early twentieth century and employed by Pershing during WW1. But the development of management over huge projects has more to do with the industrial revolution itself rather than a cultural imitation of military organizations. When one considers the development of project management through the efforts of Taylor and Gaant, it looks like the influence of culture went the other way.

The National Defense Education Act was to last 4 years, but instead of returning to our domestic education or what some would call liberal education, the change has become permanent and it has been strengthened despite some believing our constitution prevents the federal government from controlling education. — Athena

The language of the act specifically excludes control of curriculum:

"Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution or school system."

In regards to the shrinking influence of "liberal education", isn't that more directly related to the struggle between Specialization vs. Generalization that pits the demands of our means of production against the desire to broaden and enhance the lives of individuals?

His [Eisenhower's] warning has not been well understood and some believe talking about it is only conspiracy talk. — Athena

I am not familiar with the warning being received as "conspiracy talk", unless you are making a reference to someone like Chomsky who sees the owners of industry manipulating every system at their disposal for their benefit. Eisenhower wasn't imputing a malign motive to either the state or the capitalists. He was pointing at how the complex perpetuated itself and tended to expand if let unchecked. Your observation is more "conspiratorial" than Eisenhower's remarks.

It is essential to the understanding of this subject that we all understand the US also adopted the German model of bureaucracy and this became a huge shift of power when Roosevelt and Hoover worked together to give us Big Government (fascism). — Athena

If you are going to look for the DNA of modern bureaucracy, it is more profitable to look at France.
They had developed a professional civil service and a system of state finances while the Prussians were still busy telling other Prussians to get off their lawn. The French system was so well established that Alexis De Tocqueville wrote a book on how the revolution didn't actually change it: The Old Regime and the French Revolution.
The first real explosion in the role of Bureaucracy in the U.S. was after the Civil War what with all the management problems that appeared with conquering indigenous and rebellious people in ever expanding new domains.
The equation you make between Big Government and (fascism) is something you are assuming and trying to prove at the same time.

The enemy to our democracy is not over there, it is internal, and the only way to defend our democracy is in the classroom. — Athena

I agree wholeheartedly. How that is precisely the case is a subject of much disagreement.

Er, you were the one saying one proof was better than another. Asking for a defense of that opinion offers you an opportunity to explain why.

Your reply to the request asserts other opinions that you are also not defending. You demur by claiming they are self evident. So far, you have not produced anything to shift in any direction.

The insulting tone could be seen as an ad hominem argument but that is not quite right because your claims are a not a rebuttal to anything I have claimed.

Nothing has happened yet.

Perhaps you could relate how you consider that proof to be superior to others. You, after all, are the one claiming such a superiority.

You express a lot contempt for certain ideas and people but I haven't seen you put much skin in the game yourself by defending your assertions. If you just want to stay on sidelines, perhaps you should adopt a less combative tone.

Well, in English, it is:

""When they (my elders) named some object, and accordingly
moved towards something, I saw this and I grasped that the thing was
called by the sound they uttered when they meant to point it out.
Their intention was shewn by their bodily movements, as it were the
natural language of all peoples: the expression of the face, the play of
the eyes, the movement of other parts of the body, and the tone of voice
which expresses our state of mind in seeking, having, rejecting, or
avoiding something. Thus, as I heard words repeatedly used in their
proper places in various sentences, I gradually learnt to understand
what objects they signified; and after I had trained my mouth to form
these signs, I used them to express my own desires."

From this description, Wittgenstein says:

"In this picture of language we find the roots of the following idea: Every word has a meaning. This meaning is correlated with the word. It is the object for which the word stands."

I see how this correspondence is indicated in Augustine's text. But It is striking to me how the references to gesture, tone, and context are brought into the narrative as part of learning the meaning. It reminds me of Wittgenstein. In this vein, I wonder if Augustine would have agreed with the observation:

"Augustine does not speak of there being any difference between
kinds of word. If you describe the learning of language in this way
you are, I believe, thinking primarily of nouns like "table", "chair",
"bread", and of people's names, and only secondarily of the names of
certain actions and properties; and of the remaining kinds of word as
something that will take care of itself."

There are stronger proofs of God. We do not need the ontological one. — hks

Give it your best shot.

I follow your explanation about the soul being prior to harmony. I am confused how the "attunement" discussion relates directly to versions of duality. In Phaedo 94c, Socrates says:

"Well surely we can see now that the soul works in just the opposite way, it directs all of the elements of which it is said to consist, opposing them in almost everything all through life. and exercising every form of control-- sometimes by severe and unpleasant methods like those of physical training and medicine, and sometimes by milder ones, sometimes scolding, sometimes encouraging--- and conversing with the desires and passions and fears as though it were quite separate and distinct from them. It is just like Homer's description in the Odyssey where he says that:
Then beat his breast, and thus reproved his heart,
Endure, my heart, still worse hast thou endured."

I don't see how this exposition on the character of the soul relates to "attributes of brain states."

Regarding the IEP article, it does a good job of describing the differences between how substance is described in Spinoza and Descartes but doesn't reflect Spinoza's emphasis on our limits to explain causes or investigate them.
I will look for a short bit of Spinoza that touches upon this.

This website describes the term this way:

"Property dualists argue that mental states are irreducible attributes of brain states. For the property dualist, mental phenomena are non-physical properties of physical substances. Consciousness is perhaps the most widely recognized example of a non-physical property of physical substances. Still other dualists argue that mental states, dispositions and episodes are brain states, although the states cannot be conceptualized in exactly the same way without loss of meaning."

That page includes comparisons with other arguments.

Perhaps you could say precisely which text confuses you.

Your approach makes sense.
Thank you for taking on the task of organizing.

Okay, joe b, that put your question in more context.
Is there something you are reading that uses the phrase: property dualist concept of mind?
Is there something about the "rejection" (if it is that) you would like to talk about independently of the previous question?

Is this question being asked in relation to specific texts that you have been asked to read?

Spam

We don't need to frame philosophy in terms of propositions that eschew a poetic charge. — macrosoft

Maybe we don't have to frame philosophy that way. I have some sympathy for Socrates pouring cold on the idea. He did it in the context of forming an ideal curriculum for teaching children.But he was also challenging people who knew by heart what was being proposed to be separated. Their agreement to the argument as given didn't mean they were agreeing to remove narratives written into their lives with indestructible threads. It is kind of an argument that removes its strongest points of justification if the proposed action is taken.
So, I don't have a good answer to your good question. I do have a few questions left in me.

Your point is well taken that what Spinoza was saying by "substance" cannot be easily associated with contemporary meanings. I am only adding the observation that his idea was also at odds with his contemporaries, including a certain guy from France. I read Spinoza as also directly challenging Anselm in regards to "what can be conceived." I will save that argument for another day.

Neo-platonism is very much concerned with that. So too were the gnostics, although as you say, Plotinus was critical of them, but from our perspective both sides might seem to have much more in common than either of them do with us today. — Wayfarer

For sure. And I brought up Spinoza partly because he is part of the exclusion or prison escape you are talking about. Not because he shares something essential to the the others that I could prove as a matter of principle.
It is more along the lines of checking out who Dante put in the pagan lobby in the Inferno. Nice crowd.

I understand the limitations of your regard regarding Schumacher. It is similar to my regard for Ivan Illich. I don't agree with Illich for many particular reasons (maybe most of them) but love him for what he took upon himself to struggle with.

I agree with the points made previously by the others but want to focus on the idea of buying power. On the one hand, consumers have an incredible power over any provider of goods by simply not purchasing from them. The principle of boycotting certain products is a way to diminish influence but is not a replacement for it. The other options may be more palatable for whatever reason but they are not in the business of challenging any of the elements that make the business possible.
So "I" can stop giving money to certain owners but that doesn't, by itself, provide any leverage over how things are made and for what reason.
Capitalism is not going to sort out that limit through itself. That can be observed without promoting any particular solution to the problem.
For what its worth, even hard core free marketeers like Hayek have noted that it cannot replace the civic life, per se.
At the very least, I think the argument should be on the other foot. The burden of proof is on those who claim a system of exchange can replace all other methods of deciding what happens next.
Being told to freely select what has been offered doesn't sound like an alternative to much. How is it separable from: "we had choices during the process of conditioning and that made us feel free."

Your rhetorical question is a meaningless taunt.

This conversation between you and Terrapin Station interests me, in that I had to learn how to listen to some music while others felt like I had been expecting it without knowing that I did. I have become leery of a lot of comparisons because my primary goal is the experience without qualification. A desire for immersion.
So, many of the things I value most highly are avoided most of the time because I am not ready for them. I need a grammar lesson for some things but I cut it off if interferes with my exposure to it.

Whoa, couldn't we start over again with a new thread with an agreement of how much to read as a start?

It has been a few years since I read it and my knees hurt when I try to jog.

Thanks for the reference to E. F. Schumacher's A Guide for the Perplexed. I had not known about it and will give it a read.

The "'topography of the sacred' along with the diagram reminds me a lot of Plotinus mapping out forms of experiences. It also reminds me of some of the Gnostic "maps" that Plotinus opposed.

On the matter of " Cartesian anxiety", it may be worth considering that Spinoza wrote his Ethics with the intent of belaying perplexity of this kind. Not just in saying that all substances (including our minds) are in God but by noting that men can only see will and intent as a means to an end whereas it is very unlikely that God suffers the same limitation. Along the same lines, Spinoza distinguishes looking for causes of finite things as necessarily looking for something outside of the caused thing where infinite things cause themselves.

In this register, Descartes would have to be infinite to be the source of verification he claims he is.

What I learned from my previous reading group was that participants will get bogged down with terminology and understanding is hard achieved with two or more people talking past one another. — Posty McPostface

Story of my life. All of them. :cool:

The format of how comments appear here make that development difficult to overcome. Along with the natural disgust humans have for each other.
Maybe, as a matter of courtesy, a second thread could be set up alongside the first. The primary one would just be for direct attempts at wrestling with what the author says as given, the second one would be for all other activities and complaints about what have you.

No cats, though. I insist.

When considering your appeal to a change of procedure, it may be helpful to consider why some say "none of the above" won't be showing up on the menu of available alternatives.

They will make choices that will be of benefit to them, and discard choices that make them worse off. Therefore, over time, they themselves will be able to steer society to a point where the common good has been maximized, if – and only if- they have the power. — romanv

One of the observations made by communitarians such as Ivan Illich is that power to change an environment involves not becoming a tiny cog in the forces of production. From his point of view, changing representation, supporting the continuance of useful skills, permitting desirable forms of life are bound up with changing how we make and exchange things.

I don't share Illich's optimism but he does a good job of representing what optimism looks like.

Well, the initial point of entry in Aristotle's discussion of perception is commonly regarded to be his comment in De Anima, 418a3:

"That which can perceive is, as we have said, potentially such as the object of perception already is actually. It is not like the object, then, when it is being affected by it, but once it has been affected it becomes like it and is such as it is."

Welcome to some of the most hotly contested particles of ancient Greek. In this and his writings in Metaphysics there is talk about an "alteration" that allows things as they actually are to be present to a life through an alteration of that life. Something like TS Eliot saying: "You are the music while it lasts."

Now there is plenty of healthy disagreement to my thumbnail view and I hope they don't know where I live. *Valentinus removes battery from smartphone*

I always think about Aristotle on this topic. He noted that an incredible amount of work went on behind the scenes to allow something to just be what it was a you perceived it. And I suppose that is why artists of all kinds speak of "making it look easy"

Wittgenstein isn't exactly a continentalist, though. I agree that he's a weird fit for the analytic "school," but he makes much more sense to lump in with the analytics than the continentalists, especially given his association with the Vienna Circle, which is hardcore analytic philosophy. — Terrapin Station

I think of Wittgenstein as challenging both approaches. There is an impatience with playing dumb about calling for certain explanations and then saying "ah ha!, quid erat demonstratum" that appeals to me. Fool me once, etcetera.....

Differences in taste about kinds of explanations can be substantial barriers to dialogue.
Slab!

John, thanks for the download but really thanks for the website.
I feel like a kid in front of a pile of leaves.

By calling for the two commands to be seen together, I wasn't thinking primarily of whether "theism" was necessary for the love of ones neighbor to be conceivable. I was thinking of how much was being demanded of the lover, all of their heart, all of their soul, and all of their mind. In the context of being asked about Law, Jesus is usurping a conversation about what traditions to follow by demanding everything they are capable of giving. I think it would be fair to say that such a demand is unavoidably "theist."

That level of engagement makes the love of the neighbor bound up in what is being given to the Lord. The meaning of "as yourself" becomes a bit of a mystery. "ὡς σεαυτόν" doesn't mean "as much as yourself" or that your neighbor is the "same as you" The lover who is completely engaged with the loving is not in a place to make comparisons. The Delphic imperative to know thyself "γνῶθι σεαυτόν" becomes entangled with the people around you.

If you going to consider the commandment, don't forget the one preceding it:

"You are to love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind. This commandment is first and foremost. And the second is like it: You are to love your neighbor as yourself. On these commandments hangs everything in the Law and the Prophets."
Matthew 22

Pondering whether one should or can obey these directions involves keeping them together as they were given as an answer to the legal expert who asked: "Teacher, which commandment in the Law is the greatest?"

Do you have any recommendations for a companion to use alongside the PI? — Posty McPostface

That is a great challenge. I need to think about that.

My experience may be a bit of an outlier.
I read Philosophical Investigations before I even knew about or had read the Tractatus. So my engagement with the work is not concerned with completing a project or something like a replacement to other systems. The charm in PI, if you will allow me the expression, is the possibility that we need not be captive to certain problems.
In saying that, I am not dismissing Tractatus. I am not interested in establishing a circle of the only things that can be said.
The idea that we can stop repeating certain arguments is attractive.

I am interested.
Sam26 has done an excellent job but he just left the forum. I am slowly reading that thread.
I guess my first question is why you want to start over.

Well, it is funny that the one seeking advice is no longer a part of the discussion and what remains are disagreements about the value of reading the Republic.

If the original poster is still around, I encourage them to just read the damn thing. Do not prepare yourself. Don't approach it through all the reductions and filters developed by those who defended or opposed what is said there. You, the one who is listening to the arguments for the first time, is the one who is being addressed.

hks is just repeating what your fucked up therapist said.