Are you saying the global capitalist system should be democratised? — Evil

Well just as it is not the system of nation states, but each nation that should/could be democratised, so each global corporation needs - and I'm not sure that democracy is the right word - accountability of some sort.

What I see is that the function and power of national government is migrating to corporations - security firms, infrastructure firms - G4S, Amazon, the big finance companies, energy companies, Facebook, armament companies, and so on. So what government, and whether it is the sovereign nation or the enlarged trading block ceases to matter very much, because our lives are mainly ruled by corporate powers, which at the moment find that their interests lie in fomenting division and conflict, which serves to secure their position by dividing the opposition. Democracy is a restraint on the power of government, and we need a restraint on the power of corporations now, because that's where the power is; government is no longer in charge.

Trouble is the Establishment influence in trying to keep the UK in the EU is starting to become a little bit obvious as a hard Brexit would seriously unbalance their political seesaw system. Will enough people see through it all to change it? I doubt it. — TWI

Trouble is this Establishment v People mythology can be overlaid on the Right v Left mythology, and neither align with the leave v remain split, which is largely a concocted diversion from the real political problems which stem from the loss of power of democratic government of any flavour or territory to global economics. One can argue that the EU represents Global economic interests, or that it is sufficiently large to resist them somewhat - or, as I see it, that it is largely irrelevant either way.

To put it bluntly, the nation is no longer a fundamental unit of politics, and has become a trope of nostalgia. What is replacing national government and international relations are global corporations, and it is there that the democratic deficit need to be addressed; it is there that 'The Establishment' already resides.

But how do you think you can justify a second people's vote (which is what it would be)? — S

No it wouldn't. It would be a third people's vote. The first vote was in 1973, and the result was to remain. But there is always something suspect and downright paradoxical on having the people decide who are the people.

It's all so pathetically obvious that UK politics in this respect is just cringeworthy. — Benkei

Another folly of a referendum is that it asks an isolated question, when policies are interdependent. If you have a separate vote on, say...

1. lower taxes - yes/ no.
2. better services yes/no
3. economic stability yes/no

...You are very likely going to get three yeses. But they constitute a trilemma of which only two can be had.

So if a question is framed in terms of 'them' coming 'here', and no one mentions 'us' going 'there', and the impositions of the trade deal we have, but only the benefits of the ones we don't, the response will be contradictory, and expectations will be hopelessly unrealistic.

I suspect what would be really popular would be to end the Good Friday agreement and give N. Ireland back to the Republic. It would save 'us' a fortune (more than leaving the EU), make Brexit easy, and apart from the pesky loyalists, everyone would be happy. But 'we' don't get to vote on that, any more than the EU gets to vote on Brexit, because - well why not? Because 'they' are not the people who get to vote on who 'we' are, the first paradox of a referendum, already mentioned.

I'm struggling a bit here. Is this a preparation for an explanation of why footballers are rich and nurses are poor, despite the former being useless and the latter vital? Hopefully the next chapter will illuminate.

Yes. You can turn the other cheek for the attacker to slap that one too.

The law should take account of reality.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15721164-600-let-me-out-its-the-fetus-that-decides-when-its-time-to-be-born-the-mother-is-just-obeying-orders-from-her-insatiable-unborn-baby-garry-hamilton-finds-out-how/

I'm thinking of changing my name to 'Mumenlightened.'

1. is probably true, in which case one cannot unlearn it, but might come to cease wanting it. It's a process that should begin when the infant becomes mobile. One of my daughter's favourite sayings from 1 to 3 yrs was "Let me do it on my rown!" ('rown' is a grammatico-logical mis-construction - You have your-own, I have my-rown.)

So I start to wonder why someone would want to disempower themselves? And so I think of...

2. Failure is dangerous? Well sure it can be sometimes, but another's failure is just as dangerous as my own. It can happen that the same (m)other that one manipulates with helplessness becomes the shaming critic of every move towards independence. Certainly it is some person, some trauma, that has taught that one's own actions are not the realisation of one's being, but the betrayal thereof, and that is what needs to be unlearned. A little courage is required.

I'm glossing over a swath of psychological complexity, not to mention the social helplessness that makes one dependent on a complex system that delivers that pizza to your door, and makes it very difficult for you to make your rown pizza.

3. But my daughter expresses the natural craving for autonomy, even at the price of occasional failure. That confidence has been undermined, but must remain, behind the mask that urges the safety of passivity. And it finds expression - in a philosophy forum? Where one can make mistakes, appear foolish, and yet survive, and also say something interesting and significant - one begins to live.

How can you unlearn learned helplessness? — Wallows

What have you learned?

1. Acting pathetic gets (m)other(s) to run around after me.

2. Doing nothing keeps me safe from failure.

3. Something else, please specify.

Kripke uses possible world semantics without ever considering what they are existentially dependent upon... — creativesoul

Architects design possible buildings. And some of them get built. If they are good architects, their possible buildings conform to the laws of structural mechanics. These are the possible buildings that if they are built, don't fall down. Similarly, if you are planning a possible car journey, it is probably a good plan to cross the river where there is a road-bridge. Generally, the more realistic the possible world, the more likely it is to be useful.

But meanwhile, Kripke is saying that possible worlds exist only as 'notions' and notions can be realistic or fanciful, but depend existentially only on someone's willingness to entertain them. If the building doesn't get built, or the journey is not made, these possibilities are unrealised, and remain mere notions.

I've already supposed that nothing in the territory is illustrative of how I feel about some person. — Wallows

Oh. Then it's a beetle.

Is this another case of having a huge giant beetle in a box, and saying that it is so awesome to have? — Wallows

I don't think so. Well I suppose if you declare the existence of dragons having not explored, then it is in a sense. But if you live the ongoing catastrophe that is marriage, you discover that love has little to do with your feelings, and is mainly about wiping other people's bottoms and other forms of taking pains.

How am I ever going to confirm that my red is exactly what your red is? It's impossible. — TheMadFool

You ain't. You can confirm that we agree that the red bus is or isn't the same colour as the red hydrant; that we are using 'red' consistently. W's claim is that this is not only the only way we can begin to talk about red, but that to talk of 'my red' and 'your red' doesn't even make sense, though it seems to. It is the beetle in the box, that drops out of the conversation because nothing can be said about it even to oneself. If I say that my red is like an explosion of excitement, we are no further forward, because how we know that your explosion of excitement is exactly what your explosion of excitement is? And am I sure that I or you cannot have a blue one?

We know that some people see differently, and cannot use 'red' consistently - they are colourblind, or some of them are just blind. But it's not that their red is different, it's that they don't have red. To have red is to have the same red in the same places that everyone else has, and your question is as unaskable as it is unanswerable, because red is the colour of fire-engines, not the colour of fire-engine-sensations.

My apologies, but love hurts. You better head for the trauma thread for some therapy.

Folks sometimes talk of the sensation of red, ''what it is is like to see the redness of something", and in talking of such one is, as it were, pointing inwards to oneself rather than outwards. But the first requirement for the development of a language is that it be shared, and thus about what is shared. Thus it must begin with the external; not the sensation of red, but the distinction between red stuff and green stuff. First we have to agree that this is a red bus, and that is a green bus, and only then can we start to say stuff like, 'I like red buses, green is dull'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_language_argument

Oh I like that — Metaphysician Undercover

You might like it, or you might not. The old maps also used to say "Here be dragons".

Too much for what? Folks post about their concerns, and no one is obliged to read or participate in topics that don't concern them. There might be an issue of quality, or of duplication, and to deal with that, a moderator or two with a particular interest would be required.

Wayfarer?

Can we stop talking about Jesus please.

Nope. One cannot discuss the philosophy of religion without mentioning religion, any more than one can discuss the philosophy of science without mentioning science.

Excellent topic, excellent discussion. If you haven't, have a listen to this guy.



What I particularly like is the way he does not speak from on high; he excludes neither himself nor 'the professionals' from the traumatised.

you'll feel the pains, you'll feel the tears when you start hitting the right notes, and it is the way your emotions will react to your interrogation of yourself. You don't yet know what you think and feel or are really like, so you have to start asking yourself, and when you begin to feel the remorse for the ways you are, grab that line for dear life, and hold the hell on — All sight

This is the great difficulty, that the world one wants to reach is the world one fled from. To live is to be vulnerable, and having been hurt, one recoils from vulnerability even as one feels the hurt of isolation.

So I am seeking an end to isolation, but I have 'trust issues', because I have been hurt before. People who should have cared for me did not, and so, before I trust my friend, my lover, my therapist with the infinite depth of my vulnerability, I want to be certain of their love. But the tragedy is that love is like a rope, the only way to test its breaking point is to break it. Don't do it! Every relationship has a breaking point, and every time I find it, it confirms that no one can be trusted. Hold on, indeed, to all the broken ropes, add whatever thread you can, and thus I'll get by with a little help from my friends.

This self referential sentence is unproblematic; most are. Paradox only arises when a self-reference negates itself.

the limits of my language are the limits of my world? Has meaning been expressed adequately with "I love you more than words can say."? — Wallows

For there to be a limit, there must be that which is beyond the limit, and to speak of the limit is to point at 'whereof one cannot speak'. My world is limited, but my love surpasses the limit, as it surpasses myself. One speaks, obviously, within the limits of language. And at the limit, necessarily one points to what is beyond the limit, not always in the paradox of negation, but as a map of old had an area beyond the known and called it 'unexplored territory.' Words cannot tell what lies in unexplored territory, until we go and explore it.

This is the sentiment of young love. We oldies have explored a bit, and tend to say, "I love you like chips love salt, like shit loves a fan, like a war loves corpses, like a leopard loves spots", and so on. Knowing that it is both extravagant and inadequate.

Aren't we not supposed to be trolling on this board? — Terrapin Station

Which means, "I can't even deny it according to my own theory."

Communication doesn't hinge on syntax referring or on reference being something non-mental. — Terrapin Station

Which of course means, "I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to myself."

What refers, and the way it refers, is purely a matter of how an individual thinks about it. — Terrapin Station

Which of course means, "I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to myself."

"It's raining men, Hallelujah!"

Strange weather days.

And that is precisely not what W is talking about. He is referring to “language,” as in like this here thing we’re using now. People with no language can, and do, function in the world.

When W says “ostensive” he is talking about articulting to someone what something “is called”/“named” not simply flapping around and making noises that are to be taken to be associated with the action - much like me pointing at a bike does nothing to tell you it’s purpose; but I can explain further (by speaking) and then show you. — I like sushi

The main point I was wanting to make is that when one points to something and makes a sound, one cannot point to the sound. One does not need to understand the composition and function of the moon to learn the name, but one needs to understand that human sounds have meaning, and that cannot be told in meaningful sounds or by pointing. Small children have that moment of revelation, and cows never do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magic_Roundabout

“The rain it raineth on the just
And also on the unjust fella;
But chiefly on the just, because
The unjust hath the just’s umbrella.” — Charles Bowen

So here we have the authoritative explanation that it is the rain that rains. And should you be so foolish as to enquire whether the rain raineth cats and dogs, stair-rods, or some other species, I can reassure you that such is just flowery talk and the reality is that The rain rains a rain of rain.

And since you question my own authority, O impetuous ones, I will declare that I live in Wales, and that must surely settle the matter at once and for all.

He doesn’t mention, up to now, the meaning of “ostensive” teaching by showing what something is by using it - such as balancing on a contraption of two circular objects connected via a triangular frame with a chain wrapped around two smaller circular objects that are attached to the frame and to one of the larger circular objects. Merely pointing at the object and saying “bike” means nothing if you have no idea what the hell it is for and why you should hive a damn. — I like sushi

A couple of anecdotes that may or may not illuminate.

I used to keep a cow. One day I was in the field picking rose-hips, and Ermintrude wandered over to see what I was doing. As she was interested, I offered her a sample. A large cow can eat a lot faster than I can pick, so she wasn't getting any more, but she liked them, and shortly thereafter, I saw her trying to pick her own. Unfortunately, a cow's tongue is not very good for picking the hips while avoiding the prickles. Poor Emmy!

So here is ostensive teaching and learning, but no language. We understand each other, but not linguistically.

My son is about ten months old, and not going to sleep, so I take him to the back -door. It's a mild Autumn night, so I step outside and point out the full moon, "Look, there's the moon." I say. This is not the first one-sided conversation we have had.

" Moon!" Pointing franticly "Moon! Moon!"

"Yes, that's the moon," I reply.

"Moon! Moon! Moon!"

It's his first word, and our first proper conversation, and what he has discovered is something far more exciting than the meaning of one word, it is that there are words, and they mean stuff. How very different from my conversations with Ermintrude:

"Moo! Moo! Moo!"

" Yeah, I know, Emmy, the prickles stop you picking the hips. Tough luck!"

"Moo!"

...every time I try to read something it refers back to other things of which I only have a vague conception of. — Nasir Shuja

Until you know everything, which might be a while, this is always going to be a problem. But rather than give you a reading list of every significant philosopher, I suggest you cheat. What you need is a handy crib-sheet, which is known in the trade as a Dictionary of Philosophy. If you have money, you can buy one, or if you have the internet, you can use an online one such as this: http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/

Whenever your vagueness troubles you, you can look up the name or the term, and get a mercifully brief blurb that you can follow up on if you are still not satisfied.

and somewhere prior to imagining Nixon as a golf ball, we say that couldn't be Nixon? — frank

If Nixon was a golf-ball, he still wouldn't go straight.

It is the nature of counterfactuals that they posit a possible world that is not the case - a coulda woulda shoulda world that is fantasy. If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride, but they ain't and they don't. Whatever Banno had for breakfast, he had that and not something else, and it is impossible that he had something other than what he had. Such is a counterfactual world. There may or may not be a boundary of plausibility, or some limit to the amount of change you wish to countenance, but counterfactuals are all untrue.

That a man be a golf ball is not on the face of it more unreasonable than that cornflakes be eggs, or that brown eyes be blue.

But there are other sorts of possible world, such as Banno's breakfast tomorrow, that are not certainly one thing or the other; eggs or cornflakes are both real possibilities. Every time one makes a plan, one creates a possible world, and if everything goes according to plan, the possible world is realised, or if one has to adapt, another possible world is realised.

And there are epstemologically possible worlds, such that if you don't know what I had for breakfast then as far as you know, I might have had eggs or cornflakes, even though you know that whatever I had, I had that and 'could not' have had something else.

Perhaps there must be something that links a name to its referent; but it need not be a definite description. — Banno

As in 'Nixon' - the man, snake, or golf ball you were just talking about.

I don't see how we can conduct a rational analysis of suicide given that we have not the slightest idea of what death is. How does one compare a known to an unknown? — Jake

One doesn't. But every life ends with death, so the unknown appears on both sides of the comparison and can be cancelled out.

One is left with a shorter and a longer life to compare, and the quality of the extra life is crucial.

...this is the hope of the suicidal person, that they become nothing or return to nothingness, the same nothingness that existed before they were born. — Wallows

Yes, that is the hope. But if I tell you to fuck off, and then kill myself, have I told you to fuck off? Of course I have. The only thing that has changed is that I cannot apologise. the nothingness that existed before I was born can never return.

what's your best argument against suicide? — Wallows

If you have an incurable degenerative disease, or are in untreatable continuous pain, I present no argument. If you are starving, homeless, and helpless, I present no argument. If the world is unbearable and inescapable, I present no argument.

If it is you yourself that is unbearable, then I argue that that suicide is the opposite of an escape; contrariwise, it seals you forever into the unbearable being. This is why it is called the only unforgivable sin - if successful, it removes the possibility of repentance, and thus of redemption. One can change, and this is the gift of life.

Looks like fun, but it's bedtime right now.

what is your take on what this suggests about the personal/subpersonal divide (If there are any possible connections to be made)? — rei

I'm having to do my homework on that, and I'm doing it here. I might get back to you tomorrow.

One of the findings of Rosenhan (1973) which deserves mention is that although the staff did not detect the sanity of the subjects in any case, the patients often did.

None of the pseudo patients was detected and all but one were admitted with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and were eventually discharged with a diagnosis of 'schizophrenia in remission' This diagnosis was made without one clear symptom of this disorder. They remained in hospital for 7 to 52 days (average 19 days), Visitors to the pseudo patients observed ‘no serious behavioural consequences'. Although they were not detected by the staff, many of the other patients suspected their sanity (35 out of the 118 patients voiced their suspicions). Some patients voiced their suspicions very vigorously for example ‘You’re not crazy. You’re a journalist, or a professor. You’re checking up on the hospital’.

This seems to suggest that schizophrenics have a rather better theory of mind than the professionals, at least in the bad old days.

this empirical evidence — rei

I assume you are talking about things like intrusive thoughts, interpreted as 'voices', perhaps being 'beamed into their heads', or conversely that their thoughts are not private, but emanate and are read by others who are thus 'spying ' on them?

These are theories of mind, are they not? But I would suggest that they are not particularly impaired theories, but interpretations of impaired experiences. That is, they are attempts to explain certain experiences that pervade their lives.

You could perhaps make a comparison with Body Integrity Identity Disorder. One would not likely want to talk about their ' impaired theory of body' but their experience of some part of their body as 'other'. One could likewise talk of the schizophrenic as experiencing part of their mind as 'other'. Thus it would be more an impairment of identity than of theory of mind.

So it's a real stretch of creative interpretation to claim that Wittgenstein might be implying here that a game could be played without rules. In common usage, "game" implies "play according to rules", — Metaphysician Undercover

Games are going to keep on cropping up here, so I think it's worth mentioning some games without rules: sandcastles, cowboys and indians, trains, bricks, dollies, ... not that we cannot make some rules for any of them if we want to play making rules, indeed making the rules is often a large part of playing dollies, but there is no essential need, such that if it is not rule bound it is not a game.

*spoiler alert*

More generally, Wiki's family resemblance entry gives a sneak preview of the forthcoming demolition of definitive meaning as the universal pattern of meaning.

If we were Native Americans, We might adopt names with meaning. Instead of speaking of 'Nixon', which after all identifies anyone who happens to have that name, including my doctor, his wife and children, we might call him 'Big Chief Cover-Up.' And it would make no sense to suppose that Big Chief Cover-Up was not a big chief and didn't get involved in a cover-up, because his name identifies this as his essence. This is not to say that they or we believe in formal immutable essences, because after some momentous event, one changes one's name - before the election, he would have been called 'Dances with Words', or something.

Similarly, when making counterfactual histories about the Nazis, no one supposes that Hitler was a decent chap. There are rules about these things; about how far and in what direction one can change reality and take the audience with you. Kripke is not addressing these rules, (and I think Frank would like him to), because they are too subtle, conventional, complex and vague for philosophy. For Kripke, names are entirely arbitrary, like the x's and y's of algebra - because he is a logician and therefore an idiot.

"Suppose Maverick was a conformist" holds no terror for him, any more than a mathematician balks at "Let 'i' be the square root of -1", having just declared that all squares are positive.

The Guardian says they were told this by two sources. That is not "fake news". — Relativist

Well the Guardian is fairly reputable, and two sources is better than one, whereas the Canary is new and 'radical', and that article seemed to be sourced mainly in tweets. Still, the story is un-confirmed elsewhere, and the meetings denied by both parties. It would 'make sense' to Trump conspiracy theorists if it were true. And it would 'make sense' to Canary radicals if it was part of the Guardian's propaganda war on behalf of right-wing Blairite revisionists.

I'd imagine if there were meetings, there would be video images from security cameras, plane tickets, etc. I dare say such supporting evidence will be published or appear in a court-room if the story is true. In the meantime, it seems fair to put both links and let folks pick the one they prefer. Of course they are both 'socialist' so you may like just to laugh at the infighting of the fakers...

Personally, I think the Canary is well named. Every truth-miner needs a canary, and as long as the canary sings, all is well, it's when the canary dies that there is trouble down 'tpit. And meanwhile, one does not take much mining advice from the canary.

I doesn't work.

Can anyone provide an example of a possible world or counterfactual situation that is not stipulated?
— Banno

Not me... — unenlightened

Does that work better?