In my dreams, which take place in the dark, I can have the sensation of colour. — RussellA

Exactly. But if I were to ask you what colour the sensation of colour was, you might wonder what I meant.

You might want to say that the sensation of each colour is the colour of the sensation it is, or that the colour of the sensation is different from the colour it is a sensation of. Whichever you said, I would be wondering what you could possibly mean.

It seems to me that the sensation of colour has no colour; it takes place in the dark.

1. Discover your thinking is muddled.
2. Ask others to clarify and explain.
3. Get them in a muddle about it.
4. Start reading up down and all around about it.
5. Notice that it is a topic in philosophy.

Yes, of course fictions have functions too and speculation and even deliberate nonsense, in the appropriate setting, and so on.We don't need to go into that do we? I think there is agreement.

Oh wait!

'practical fictions' (reductive maps) — plaque flag

What is this? A map the size of the territory with every feature marked would be unwieldy. Sometimes one draws a map of a cell, maybe, larger than life, and sometimes one draws a map of Narnia. We, I hope, but now I am worried, understand that the word is not the thing, the map is not the territory... Don't we? In general a map is reduced to "salient features". The reduction is not a fiction any more than the failure to say everything that is true all at once is a fiction

So we've already got persons in a world and language together. And they can be wrong about this world individually. — plaque flag

Yes moral and rational beings with language in a world together. So ontology has to account for all that in some way.

The critical-rational ontologist embraces a second-order critical-synthetic oracular tradition. 'We the rational' articulate the real together, fallibly, against a kind of horizon. It's implicitly adversarially cooperative. — plaque flag

But here, I think is where I start to become deviant. Because this is exactly what science has claimed to be doing since Descartes or Newton or thereabouts, that arrived at a mechanical world devoid of meaning. Fallibly, indeed! And what they have left out is what you are still leaving out, which is the tradition of meaning.

To be a bit more specific, critical-rational ontologists do not appear fully formed, but arise out of that tradition that questions its own moral worth, which is the religious tradition. That aspiration to the ideal community is the religious aspiration in modern dress.


.

I think I've went out of my way in many posts to stress the irreducibility (for philosophers) of normativity. — plaque flag

Indeed. A brute fact then of the human world? It's necessary to our discourse. It's necessary probably to our social life.

Respectfully, I think you are reading it only for what interests you at the moment. — plaque flag

Well in a sense, yes. I am trying to make sense of something that sounds at times interesting, and then at other times seems a bit thin. I have myself argued very simply here many times that language functions as communication and depends on the prevalence of truth. Aesop illustrated this very clearly with the fable of the boy who cried "Wolf". without a commitment to truth language loses meaning and function and becomes empty 'sound and fury'.

But how do I, or you, get from there to an ontology? It seems to me that nothing in what you have said here entails anything ontological. What am I missing?

Am I not supposed to assume that what there is (apart from our dialogue) does not depend on our dialogue taking place or coming to a conclusion?

As far as I can tell, your concern is that theological metaphors might lead to superstitious denials of personal death — plaque flag

No, I think that is rather an evasion of my point. Think Plato's cave, since you seem to have an allergic reaction to religion. The scientific turn has had huge success, but at the cost of neglecting if not reducing to mere physics, subjectivity, rationality, and morality. For Plato, that world is analogised as the cave wall, a realm of shadows that is the illusory world of matter and bodies, as distinct from the real world of forms, the concern of the philosopher. Your project, as I understand it through many threads, is to marry the two worlds. I am pointing out a problem that Plato had and that you inherit. with or without gods or afterlife.

Whatever rationality is going to be in the scheme of things, if you want a monism, it is going to be problematic.

I take ontology in in this context to be “critical” or “scientific” in its intention, as opposed to relatively irresponsible myth-making. Granted that we put on the heroic robes of the “scientific” (critical) philosopher, as opposed to the mystic who denigrates dialectic as a means to truth, what have we already assumed in so doing ? — plaque flag

You already have assumed both the body, and a moral and rational robe. And these garments cannot then be reduced to bodily functions, on pain of ceasing to be fundamental and disappearing into epiphenomena. So it looks like you need a non-physical realm, of forms, if not of gods and angels.

Or else this whole thread amounts to no more than 'we have to talk in language, get used to it.' And that certainly does not rule out afterlives and much else, except procedurally and dictatorially.

I really don't agree that you're posting in good faith. — Quixodian

:100:

It reminds me of the old trope "I'm not a racist, but..." where whatever follows the 'but' is bound to be something racist.

Yes. So we have to avoid both typical mistakes. The world is not our dream, for we are flesh in the world, or 'subjectivity' could have no sense in our talk. But we only know our world, strangely, through this same flesh. — plaque flag

And that which only exists dependent on what we think, I shall call a dream, a myth, an idea, or an image.
— unenlightened

Yes. So we have to avoid both typical mistakes. The world is not our dream, for we are flesh in the world, or 'subjectivity' could have no sense in our talk. But we only know our world, strangely, through this same flesh. — plaque flag

With Kant we cannot know anything about God. So we could not make the inference that we are baby-gods or anything of that sort. That claim could not be justified by a Kantian rationality, but it can be justified in a Hegelian rationality. — Moliere

Forgive me, the thread moves fast, and my Hegel rather Vaguel. But when God is introduced, reality is turned on its head. This world of flesh becomes the dream, and rationality and morality becomes the real.

As little gods, we become the architects of our fate, and time sees the realisation of our plans and ideas and dreams within the great dream which is God's Creation. And our nightmares. For little gods it is all-important to think happy thoughts. But then, talk of the real has to start to look like this: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body/p28

Or else we relegate ideas to mere infectious memes. Flesh or spirit – is it possible not to choose? I'm reminded of Mervyn Peake's Mr Pye.

This seems to assume that Reality exists independently of what we think about it, — plaque flag

Yes, I think that looks like a foundational truth, sorry about that. And that which only exists dependent on what we think, I shall call a dream, a myth, an idea, or an image.

How does it avoid being the same kind of lostness in language it points out ? — plaque flag

By being oracular, or poetic. Rationally, one cannot be lost in language or be anywhere else than in the real world. Therefore there is no problem in the first place of 'ontology'. It's all 'engine idling'.

a kind of playful speech act that calls the theorist home for supper. — plaque flag

That was my first response, self-censored; Dinner realism, I eat therefore I am, and try not to eat the menu.

Am I eating the menu here?

Conditions for the possibility of critical discussion cannot be rationally challenged without performative contradiction. — plaque flag

As the proverbial Irishman says on being asked for directions to - anywhere, really, "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here."

Critical discussion is all performative contradiction. Or to put it contrariwise, a philosopher is one who has become lost in language, and is trying to argue his way back to reality.

I still haven't answered the question, I notice. The attraction of nomadic life is an imagined escape from social responsibility. The reality is that social dependence and the accompanying responsibility are inescapable and nomads are far more dependent and vulnerable than the settled.

There is a tropical agriculture known as 'slash and burn' where one clears a patch of jungle, grows crops for a few years and then abandons it when the soil is exhausted and moves on to clear a new patch. This is a slow migratory system, that will only be sustainable for a very small tribal population.

To support an urban population requires a more intense use of land involving crop rotation, irrigation, domesticated livestock, and so on, including mining for lime and phosphates to maintain soil fertility. This is what 99% of the population relies on for food, and therefore it takes up all the most convenient land which of necessity is permanently settled. Nomads foraging for food in the fields cultivated by others leads to conflict, so generally nomads these days are confined to marginal land - mountains, deserts, and remote jungles. And they probably don't have great internet access, or health insurance.

Monsanto is a science and technology group.

Still waiting for you to explain what problems exactly are unsurmountable. — Benkei

Here's your answer:–

The cost of winning an argument is that now they hate you because you made them lose. — frank

Some of us have this magical ability to change our minds when we find out we were wrong, and others just get angry. If only they could realise that it was them being wrong that made them lose...

Agriculture.

Those with morals are always at a disadvantage with regard to those who are amoral, because they limit their own options. Join the forces of evil now!

My theory is that with only two parties, political identity becomes much more entrenched. Part of that identity is hating the other party so even if an amoeba runs for your side, you're still going to vote for it because it's not the other side. — Benkei

Here's an alternative hypothesis. that when two patties are 99% politically identical, matters of style become all important: back to the future v forward to the good old days hatred of tolerance v tolerance of hatred. When there is nothing to choose between the parties, the monsters of mythology must be invoked on each side to create a significant difference, otherwise no one will bother to vote at all.

I hadn't heard that term before. — frank

That explains a lot.

So how about just walk away? — frank

You walk away if you want to, but I haven't entirely given up on you. And I haven't given up on the topic either. A lot of people are going to die, more than a few already have died, and a lot of environments are going to die, but we can go on making things worse, or we can start trying to make things less awful. I'm for doing the latter, even if it means being a little bit harsh with people who pretend to a knowledge they do not have.

You understand that "climate denial" is an umbrella term, that should not be taken absolutely literally? From 'its not happening', to 'it's not that bad', to 'there's nothing to be done', to 'it's always happened', to 'it might get colder soon', to 'seasonal change is greater than climate warming' . I mean, really, what is that last one for shit posting? You want us to discuss why that is problematic?

Yes. We do not discuss flat Earth theory, because it is nonsense, and would prevent us from having sensible conversations. The climate 'debate' is as over as the flat Earth debate, and the smoking/lung cancer connection debate. To give the impression that it is not over will cost lives, and slow down efforts at mitigation.

I didn't rationalize that it's ok to hurt people. — frank

You appear to be rationalising that your interventions here will not hurt anyone, but you may be very wrong. If Mikie is right, then you are giving aid and comfort to those who for whatever reason are actively preventing people from reaching a consensus that would allow a collective response to a crisis that will cost many lives. A high price for us to pay for your delusion of innocence.

The problem for me, is that I don't think I'm smart enough to know when I'm deluding myself. — frank

But it doesn't stop you telling us how to behave. So it looks like your claim above is one of your delusions.

But in an emergency, what is moral changes. When the boat is in danger of overturning, it is moral to restrain the guy rocking the boat. When there is no danger, let him have his fun.

Let's be civil. — frank

It is civility and civilisation that are under threat. Civility has to stop at the point where the conditions for its existence are threatened, just as 'freedom' does. Your moral scruples will not save us here, but are themselves out of order. It's a climate emergency, not a climate chat show. Let us resist catastrophe, by any means necessary, even including being a bit rude occasionally.

You have a right to think whatever you want. — frank

Says who? And with what authority? It has always been the case and will always be the case that one does not have the right to think what one likes. If one thinks that all Jews should be exterminated, or that children need introducing to sex by pedophiles. one ought to be locked up, and very likely will be sooner or later.

I have no doubt peddling lies about the climate will be similarly regarded once the effects of climate change begin to bite and the megadeath toll begins to mount.

No irony, I mean it literally. I merely point out that set theory presupposes the set theorist commanding the realm of forms into existence, and this is exactly the same story as the bible creation myth of God hovering over the void. Neither is real, or both are real; and as I am unable to decide, I am inclined to call this a limit of thought, and say no more about it.

Yes Cantor is even more Godlike than the set theorist. Perhaps Hindu mythology could relate to him? I don't know enough of it. But the diagonal proof is beautiful. No matter how many gods you worship, there are always more ...

The empty set is an empty circle. So it's circles inside circles inside circles, and one can build up to the real numbers and beyond — plaque flag

It's been done before.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the empty set. Now the empty set was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. And God said "there is the empty set and it is the only one, so the set of sets is one, and thus there are 2 sets, the empty set and the set of empty sets. and god divided the light from the darkness, and called the darkness the empty set and the light he called 'one'.

Mathematics is fabulous!

4 years to come up with, "what was I saying?" seems very slow thinking indeed . How many of us will still be alive for the next pearl?

Is there only one Trump supporter on this whole forum? — RogueAI

It's an ancient tradition, that kings, even philosopher kings, allow one motley fool to entertain and deflate, lest they cease to question their own wisdom, and become as the emperor with no clothes.

I very much think that a mathematician or physicist or biologist can do genuine 'ontological' work themselves. — plaque flag

Form and substance - the first dualism. I sometimes call them 'stuff and arrangements'. I would say that mathematicians explore the possible arrangements of anything- pattern, chaos, order, disorder, symmetry, asymmetry. whereas physicists and biologists look to explore the actual arrangement of stuff. Some mathematicians seem to think that there can be, or are arrangements of nothing. It makes no sense to me. Just as you cannot have stuff without it being arranged or disarranged in some form, so you cannot arrange or disarrange nothing. Form is the general, and substance the particular, and they are two aspects on one world.
Or we could talk about energy and information as the temporal unfolding of energy difference into informational complexity.

Whatever reality is, reality necessarily excludes – negates – unreality (i.e. ontological impossibles — 180 Proof

Ontological impossibles are contradictions, limits on sensible talk. but if reality happens to be that particles are wavy and waves are a bit particular, talk has to conform itself to reality, because talk does not constrain reality at all (unless it's God's talk of course - 'Let there be light.' :wink: ).

Oh, sorry.

Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that. — Bill Shankly

Philosophy is football with the universe as the ball, and everyman the referee.

The notion of some infinitely gentle
Infinitely suffering thing.

The Goal.

Philosophers are the thought police; roping off the dead ends and directing the traffic, but going nowhere themselvesselves. Dutiful, taking pains, loving, hoping not to get run down today by a man in a hurry.

Isn't it true that thoughtfulness is an indication of love, even if love does not actually require thoughtfulness for its existence? I don't see how thoughtlessness could be consistent with "love". — Metaphysician Undercover

When I say thought, I mean linguistic thought. Love begins in caring and nurture, you know nests, sitting on eggs, wagging your tail when the human looks at you.

Yup. there seem to be multiple threads approaching the same thing from different angles. The Lifeworld is telling us we done gone wrong somewhere, and that is an inescapably moral judgement, in the sense that if you eat all the pies today, there'll be nothing for breakfast tomorrow. We have nature beat, so now we have to live in a desert. Oops! Some religious comment about karma, or living by the sword seems appropriate - old signposts we philosophers have encouraged folk to ignore.

Is it not a re-run of looking into the void, and the void looking into you. Is she not saying, "Don't imagine all the obseverish specialness is on the one side. 'Plaque flag, meet cave fish. Cave fish, meet plaque flag."

Discursive practice is made of the fundamental particles of the universe which is the intra-action. She talks about discursive practice rather than the atomic 'speech act'. Our discussion and her book are defining each other in a mutual process, a thread is an experiment that might work or not.

We are, each of us, incomplete. So I think, not because I am, but because I want to be. — Metaphysician Undercover

Psychologically, this rings true. The world pours into the emptiness of awareness, never filling it. Being unfolds in time. But thought is unimportant, in the sense that it does nothing to complete us and fill the void, only love can do that. But for the rest, it looks to me that you have simply swapped interior and exterior and repeated the Cartesian dualism. So you end up as an idealist trying to think happy thoughts instead of a pleasure-seeking materialist.

Cool! you guys rock!

It would be great if governments incentivised the changes through taxation and subsidy. And even maybe directly building some generating infrastructure, but there seems to be a shortage of very stable genii in most governments. For buildings, for example a limit on rental charges permitted depending on the certified energy efficiency. Not very 'unregulated free market', but still... making stuff worth while doing is a good way to get folk to do stuff.

Replacing 1 billion internal combustion engines with 1 billion batteries, and the building generating capacity to keep them all charged, will not be easy. — BC

You don't have to do it alone, there are the billion car owners to help. Each has to replace just one.

Have you looked at the link in this thread? I'm currently struggling with it, but it may have something like a decent answer, if |I can get my head around it.

https://smartnightreadingroom.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/meeting-the-universe-halfway.pdf