This is the kind of modern projection I’m talking about. — Noble Dust

The question is the extent to which these projection distort. The sayings attributed to him were all written after the fact of his death. To what extent were they projections? To what extent did the distort?

This might be regarded as impious, but piety is not the measure of the accuracy of historical truth.

But he goes beyond Kant. — spirit-salamander

This is what I am getting at. How much of what you say sheds light on the "Basic Questions for any Kantians"?

Thanks for the link. I took a quick look. Do you consider him a "Kantian"?

The question would then be whether we are part of the world.
If so, a claim about us would be one also about the world. — spirit-salamander

It is a claim that as part of the world we do not have access to other things in the world as they are in themselves. It is always as they are for us.

The Messiah was to bring about the Kingdom of God (Heaven) on Earth. Before the mission was completed he died. In order to maintain hope in the promise of the Kingdom his followers had to make sense of the fact that he died before the mission was completed. In order to do this they had to create a narrative in which his death was not the end, but the beginning as God had planned.

Where is it you think your argument leads? What's the point of your comment? Do you think it shows a problem with hinge propositions? — Banno

It is not a problem with hinge propositions but with what counts as a hinge.

You asked:

What would be the hinge propositions here?

"Here is a bock"
"Here is a slab"
"Here is a beam" — Banno

For something to be a hinge something must turn on it. "Here is an X" is not a hinge proposition. Even a primitive language like the builder's consists of more than just identifying or naming objects.

Note that "doing the correct thing" with a block rests on the hinge proposition "This is a block". — Banno

This is where we differ. I am not denying the indubitability of what a block is. I am arguing that not doubting what a block is is not sufficient for doing the correct thing.

You have not explained this:

How can the game be played, how can they work, if the command is in doubt? — Fooloso4

Doubt here means not being certain what the command is. Note: As Wittgenstein says:

B brings the stone which he haslearnt to bring at such-and-such a call.

Bring the stone is something he had to learn, just as he had to learn "this is a stone". He cannot doubt what a stone is or doubt what to do with it.

That's not a false dichotamy, that's literally the language we're using — Garrett Travers

You claim that 'why' is incorrect, but it is commonly used in that way.

Ironically, I see you were just quoted saying:

Again, its time to move on from this, you staying stuck on this terminology bit is only going to make your points stranger and stranger. — Garrett Travers

In this case, you are staying stuck on this terminology bit.

By means of the inviolable laws of the nature of the universe. — Garrett Travers

Those laws may not be inviolable. Rather than "read about science" read what scientists are actually saying and arguing about.

But I see that others have taken your measure. Perhaps something they say will get through to you.

My understanding of a hinge is that something must revolve around it. In this case it is not enough simply to correctly identify a block but to do the correct thing with it. The assistant will be mistaken if he picks up a block and does something other than bring it to the builder. If I am new on the job "here is a block" does not function as a hinge proposition in the builder's game if I don't know what to do with that information.

Whether Moore's "here is a hand" is a hinge depends on what hangs from or turns around it, with what we do with that the statement. We may not doubt it, but simply identifying or naming myriad things does not make them hinges.

I pointed out that what he was to do with the block is also indubitable. You disagreed.

I agree with you that there is a difference between the builder's language and Moore's claim. That difference is not made clear by "Here is a block".

But if you regard this as being adamant an superfluous, I'll leave it there.

Having a bad day?

You are right, the half of a sentence you quoted is not a sentence, although, as you quoted:

For this purpose they make use of a language consisting of the words “block”, “pillar”, “slab”, “beam”. A calls them out; B brings the stone which he has learnt to bring at such-and-such a call. —– Conceive of this as a complete primitive language.

If this is a complete language then "block" is a sentence in that language.

... your conclusion doesn't follow. — Banno

B must have no doubt about not only what a block is but what he must do with it. How could the game be played otherwise?

If the game only occurs if block is indubitable it is equally true that it only works if bringing it is indubitable.

It is not only:

the implicit link between the language game and the bits and pieces around the building site. — Banno

but the link between the language game and the activity. It is not just the objects but the activity that is at issue.

We might ask: "what are we to do with Moore's 'here is a hand'".

IF the assistant did something else with the block rather than bring it to the builder then he would have made a error as well.

So:

The meaning of the command "Block!" in the language game is found in the assistant bringing a block. — Banno

but it is not indubitable that this is what it means? How can the game be played, how can they work, if the command is in doubt?

You're agreeing with me in this instance. — Garrett Travers

It may seem that way if you do not grasp what is at issue. When someone asks "why does metal rust or tarnish" they are not asking for a metaphysical explanation, but for the physical cause. You set up a false dichotomy with the distinction between how and why.

This is a completely incoherent statement. I have no idea what you're saying. — Garrett Travers

The fault is your own.

No, there's a problem with trying to negate science — Garrett Travers

I am not trying to negate science! There is a problem with your lack of understanding of what is at issue here. You are so intent on honoring yourself with the task of setting the world straight that you cannot see what the issues are.

An argument from ignorance is not a fallacy that lends credence to the negation of material reality. — Garrett Travers

That is something you can take up with someone who has offered such an argument. I have not. You are barking up the wrong tree. But you seem to be so enamored with hearing yourself bark that nothing else matters. I am not arguing against "material reality" I am saying we know far less about it than you seem to imagine we do.

That which is know is definitive. — Garrett Travers

You would do well to spend more time reading about the history of science.

Everybod that argues against materialism is. — Garrett Travers

Once again, I am not arguing against materialism. I make no metaphysical claims, but have argued here and elsewhere that our best bet is to commit to some form of materialism.

Plural, that needs no explanation. — Garrett Travers

But it does. If there are multiple metaphysical substances how to they function to form a coherent whole?

I already stated as much. — Garrett Travers

That is that:

We understand some things, although that understanding is subject to change, but there is a whole lot, perhaps an endless amount that we do not. — Fooloso4

And yet:

Matter is understood extrodinarily well, and that which is understood is definitive. — Garrett Travers

How about looking at the difference in sentencing and punishment for the same crime? The "war on drugs" is a prime example.

... it assumes that her, her family, or her friends have been on the wrong side of the justice system by virtue of her skin color, — NOS4A2

In a sense that is largely true, but not because of anything they may have done but because being Black puts them on the wrong side of the justice system with regard to how they are likely to be treated. The expression "driving while Black" comes from experience. An experience you will have no knowledge of unless you are aware of the need to educate yourself regarding such matters.

The manner in which you just employed why, is actually to say "how is this happening?" — Garrett Travers

More like, what is happening. I take it you are arguing against some notion of meaning and purpose as the reason for things. If so, I agree.

A linguistic mishap that everybody falls into, of course. — Garrett Travers

It is not a linguistic mishap. There are various senses in which we ask why something happens. If someone borrows a tool and it comes back rusty and I ask why, I am not looking for an explanation of the process of oxidation.

How can be mapped to reality. Literature, and why, cannot. — Garrett Travers

It depends on what you are asking about. The how of human motivation is murky but the why might be clear. An understanding of the world is not limited to the physical sciences.

Through chemical interactions, mass, time, and gravity. Nothing more to it. — Garrett Travers

A non-answer posing as science. These do not explain self-organization.

That's mixing how's and why's again. — Garrett Travers

I am asking precisely how matter organizes itself. There can be no chemical interactions without the organization of matter. It seems that you are not familiar with the scientific concept and mistake it for something else.

There's nothing more solid. It is the definition of solid. It is the foundation every scrap of science and what it has achieved is predicated upon. — Garrett Travers

There is a problem with attempting to explain the whole of science in terms of something that is not adequately understood. We cannot explain quantum physics or gravity or time by saying: well, its all just matter". The behavior of matter remains a mystery.

There is much more at issue here than you seem to be aware of. Again, I am not arguing against materialism in favor of supernatural forces. It is just that you are saying much less than you imagine you are.

I'm honored to be among the ones to be tasked with dispensing with such tripe. — Garrett Travers

To be blunt, you are sorely ill-equipped to do so.

This is anti-scientific ... — Garrett Travers

Evidence in support of what I just said.

We know exactly what matter is. We do not understand all of its characteristics and dynamics, — Garrett Travers

Which is it, we know exactly what it is or we do not understand all its characteristics and dynamics? It can't be both!

Matter is the substances that constitute the observable universe. — Garrett Travers

Is that singular or plural? Substance or substances?

Before we understood matter. — Garrett Travers

What you don't understand is that we still don't understand matter. We understand some things, although that understanding is subject to change, but there is a whole lot, perhaps an endless amount that we do not.

That game can only occur if "Here is a block" is indubitable. — Banno

Does what it means to bring a block also indubitable?

The how is open for discovery. The "why" is not. — Garrett Travers

The 'how'/'why' distinction is problematic. Using your example of chemistry we can ask why the combination of one element with another produce something that has properties that neither of the elements do. And why does it only occur under certain conditions?

Why is itself a human concept, that was my point. Not that matter is a concluded concept. — Garrett Travers

How too is a human concept that is addressed in terms of another human concept - matter. That is my point.

The evidence points to the the latter ... — Garrett Travers

And yet we cannot combine matter to get life. One problem is that a living thing is living matter but you are claiming that the evidence is that matter is not living. Another is we do not have an agreed upon concept of life. Here is a non-technical discussion of some of the issues: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2019/03/27/what-is-life/?sh=1e3018291c77

No evidence suggests it is intelligent. All evidence suggests the latter. — Garrett Travers

The challenge is explaining self-organizing systems at various levels. How does something without intelligence organize itself?

Materialism posits that the universe is a material one, that all understandings of it can only come from that base position. — Garrett Travers

A base position without a solid base.

But, a mystery is not validation of an anti-materialist perspective. — Garrett Travers

I am not arguing for an anti-materialist perspective but rather for a recognition that what the materialist perspective at any given time in the past is not what it is now and not what it is likely to be in the future. We do not know what matter is. We should be no more confident that what we proclaim today to be true than those chemists who proclaimed the phlogiston theory should have been. It was, after all, based on matter.

All of this leaves unanswered the question of what it is he means by religion. He mentions spiritual values, Zen, and Shinto which some regard as matters of religion or at least not distinct from religion.

... whether or not we understand all of the mysteries of matter is irrelevent... — Garrett Travers

The only thing humans can determine is the how. — Garrett Travers

The mysteries of matter include the 'how'. The concept of matter is not fixed. As the concept develops the explanation of the how changes. Is matter "alive" or does it simply give rise to life under certain conditions at a sufficient level of complexity? If the latter, then how? Does it organize itself? How? Is it intelligent or does it simply give rise to intelligence under certain conditions at a sufficient level of complexity? Is the distinction between what is and is not alive clearly delimited?

These and many other questions are not meant to indicate that there must be something outside the natural world that acts on it. It is, rather, that at this stage of the game "matter" is not an explanation for how things are as they are. We simply do not understand what it is.

My answer was based on a Western point of view. I guess in this side of the world, philosophy is taught starting with the Greeks. — javi2541997

Understood. It is the Western point of view that needs to be challenged.

It is ironic that many accept Thomas Nagel's "view from nowhere" and yet it is only works from a specific somewhere that are read.

the discipline of thought which comes from Ancient Greece. — javi2541997

This is something that needs to be questioned rather that perpetuated. Although they did not call it philosophy, China and India had advanced traditions of thought to rival the Greeks.

That's the martyr script, which he stumbled upon. — Olivier5

I suspect it was his followers who created this script. The death of their messiah created a crisis. Some probably saw this as evidence that they were wrong, that Jesus was not their messiah. But others came up with this story because they had to maintain hope. It was not the end but a new beginning.

No, it is not obvious to me — NOS4A2

Right, it is not obvious to you, you are oblivious, as is clear from the following:

But at the same time this grandstanding can only serve to maintain a division where there isn’t one. — NOS4A2

One only need look at the disproportionate treatment of Blacks by law enforcement, the courts, and the prison system. But you can bury your head in the sand and pretend things are different, because systematic racism does not affect you because of your skin color.

This division, at every step, is born of pseudoscience and hatred, and reified by activities such as this. — NOS4A2

This is certainly part of it, but you have it backwards. "Race thinking" is not something new, created by those who recognize racial disparities, it is a response to racial hatred. Do you really not know this?

I’m sure someone smarter than me could come up with a way to hold people, Biden in this case, accountable for whoever they select. — Pinprick

This is the role of the Senate.

Maybe there should be a diverse group committee that decides instead of just one person. — Pinprick

It is not decided by one person, it is decided by the Senate, although it is not as diverse as many think is should be.

Maybe presidents should have to “prove” that the person they choose for a position wasn’t due to racism, nepotism, sexism, etc. — Pinprick

Again, this is the work of Senate. They have the power (or at least certain members do in some cases such as when Mitch arbitrarily blocked Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland and vowed to block any nomination by Biden if the Republicans have the majority in 2024), to approve or disapprove of a nomination. It is not a unilateral process.

Speaking about literature about something related to values, culture, ethics, etc... That is somehow an opposition to religion. — javi2541997

These are things that are central to religion, not only formatively but as ongoing concerns.

Probably this debate is correlated to the famous old question: Who came first? Philosophy or Greek poetry? — javi2541997

Perhaps the more important question is whether they are to be understood as distinct. The writings of Homer and Hesiod appeared before the birth of Thales. As to what Plato calls the 'ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry' we need to look more closely at the dialogues and the poets. It should not be assumed that because Plato is regarded as philosopher rather than poet that he thought the issue was in any way resolved in favor of philosophy. Plato's writings are philosophical poetry. He was a maker (see the Greek poiesis, from which we get the terms poet and poetry). Much more recently Wittgenstein said :

Philosophy ought really to be written only as a form of poetry.

(Culture and Value)

The reason is simple and should be obvious. There is a disproportionate number of black citizens who have been convicted and sentenced to prison. Those whose own experience, which includes that of family and friends, is closer to those who have been incarcerated are more likely not only to be aware of the disparity but to have suffered from it. Their judicial decisions are far more likely to this into consideration than those who receive, at worst, a slap on the wrist.

The fact that you, along with Chief Justice John Roberts, are isolated from and are unaware of such disparity, imagining that the days when the law and courts were unjust is in the past, is a powerful argument in favor of more racial diversity.

It was certainly relevant wherever the law was unjust and the court racist, sure. But that’s no argument that it is now or ought to be. — NOS4A2

I repeat, you are woefully uninformed.

By religion does he mean Shinto, Judaism, Christianity, some set of beliefs or practices or rituals?

By literature does he mean only written works? Are religious myths distinct from literature? Are Kojiki and Nihon Shoki distinct from literature? Is what is referred to as 'biblical literature' not, at least in part, literary?

The racial makeup of a court is irrelevant to law and the function of a court. — NOS4A2

You are woefully uninformed. Neither the law nor the courts are racially neutral.

Apparently you are not familiar with Jim Crow laws or Thurgood Marshall.

The preferential treatment of white males over minorities has been harmful, disadvantageous, and unfair to them, has it not? — Pinprick

Is this to be remedied by nominating another white male?

I think ucarr might mean 'engaging'. — Tom Storm

That occurred to me too, but I wonder if it has something to do with television and video. Sesame Street is educational and entertaining. It was fast paced and visually and auditorily stimulating. There now seems to be a preference for content delivered via video rather than books.

No, I'm asking whether the scholars are projecting modern ways of thinking unto the ancient past, and questioning whether that's an appropriate projection. — Noble Dust

No, I don't think so. Their claims run counter to modern ways of thinking, but it may be that we can never free ourselves from time and place.

The problem here is it feels like us modern secular and atheistic readers are imagining the whole of ancient religion to be some sort of farce wherein the religious elite were crafting ways to maintain control over their population with full knowledge that it was all bullshit. — Noble Dust

That is not the impression I get from what I read. I do think the problem of rule and leading the people, but I don't think they thought of the mythology they created as bullshit. It was, rather, a way of making sense of things.

A quick answer. I have other things to do that my family things are more important. The pizza won't make itself.

Two things: First, he recognized that both those who argued for realism and those who argued for idealism had a point. He combines them in a synthesis. Second, he believed that reason had limits.

Surely both parties here have biases. — Noble Dust

Yes, but the issue is whether, the biases of scholars altered the original sources as found in the Bible, or if the Bible is an alteration of its sources. For some this may make no difference. They are guided by what inspires them, but others are interested in the history and development of Jewish and Christian religion.

What I'm saying is that religious leaders weren't having summits where they agreed on who to combine with whom. — Noble Dust

I cannot cite examples but it is not unreasonable to think that certain beliefs became the norm through the work of priests and scribes. We do see in several places in the Hebrew Bible different accounts bound together, sometimes more skillfully than others. Consider, for example, the two stories of the beginning. In the story of the flood we are told both that there are two of each kind on the Ark and seven. More recently we find the Midrash on the Torah, Pirkei Avot, for example, which includes sayings of Hillel. The rabbis debated together and recorded what was said. The Councils at Nicaea were summits that establish orthodox Christian theology.

Two further complications with Christianity:

First, if Jesus was the messiah, the promise was broken. He died.

Second, the messiah comes to be regarded not as a man sent by God, but God.

At first it was believed that the promise would still be fulfilled in that generation. Then the next generation believed it was the one. Eventually the idea of a second coming at some unspecified time took root.

That their god had dies was in stark contrast to the older notion of the power of god to vanquish the enemy. But the claim arose that this was all part of the divine plan, like the kid on the playground who says he wanted to loose the fight.

With Paul the battleground shifted to to an internal struggle against sin. As political circumstances changed power and wealth once again regained prominence; although a powerful clergy with a great deal of ostentatious wealth still paid lip-service to the virtues of the weak and poor.

Thence we shall define nature as the whole object of all possible experience. — Paine

Objectivity is universal subjectivity.

I am in agreement with what you say. I see this as a belief or hope or expectation that stems from powerlessness. It is a shift away from earlier views of the power of our god to protect us from and vanquish our enemies. When our side lost it was because we lost god's favor and had to restore it. Some saw the messiah as a warrior. But here it is the weak who will inherit the earth. It is an acknowledgement of powerlessness against the forces of Rome. The battleground has shifted to heaven from earth.