The explanation for solidity is not the somewhat vague idea probably everyone has before learning what's really going on. — Patterner

Here's a funny thing: After learning that atoms are mostly space, one does not find oneself sinking into one's arm chair. Things remain solid.

Learning that atoms are mostly space does not change the fact that arm chairs are solid. Both are true.

If there is a problem of perception here, it is the misperception that things consisting mostly of space cannot also be solid.

Your response shows exactly why Banno might prefer a PM discussion. — J

Pretty much. The usual suspects are here, together with the personal attacks. Of course, I created this thread specifically to run away from criticism, as always. :roll:

Paul used to say that our discussions should be conducted, not primarily for the benefit of the participants, but for the silent reader. No silent readers of pms, alas. — unenlightened

Not a bad point. The PM conversations have usually resulted in a few corresponding posts in public, or a whole thread, so are not entirely lost to posterity.

But I rate Banno highly as a philosopher, and he does engage; some people find that unpleasant. — unenlightened

Cheers.

I don't feel obliged to respond to, or even read crap posts from crap posters, so, filtering is not much of an issue. — SophistiCat

There are a few who have shown bad faith, and so with whom I usually do not engage - indeed, I don't often read their posts. They are aware of this, but curiously they insist on participating mainly in my threads.

which might mean sometimes patience with those who are missing the point. — Hanover

Patience is not infinite.

They start deconstructing what philosophers deeply value and build something totally different that's basically an insult to academic philosophy. — Skalidris

You mean like Kripke?

To be sure, I'm talking about using the inbox facility in the forums, not a different provider.

we had deep conversations in Spanish — javi2541997

Nice. I had quite an extensive PM chat with him myself, but it became a bit odd and I ended it. I wish him well.

I miss Isaac for this — fdrake

Oh, yeah. He was very helpful.

I rarely post anything anymore because I find it too much bother wading through trivial responses. — I like sushi

I think that entirely understandable. It's not arrogant to respect your own time.

...Axial Age, ‘a period in human history, roughly between the 8th and 3rd centuries BCE, when significant developments in religious and philosophical thought occurred independently in various parts of the world. — Wayfarer

Some scepticism is deserved here. It's pretty likely that this "boom" was the result of oral traditions being writ down.

Certainly the myth of simultaneous enlightenment is dubious.

"the world is as it appears" — AmadeusD

Just that, in a fairly straight forward way. The arm chair appears to be an arm chair because it is an arm chair, the cat appears to be a cat becasue it is a cat.

If I got up tomorrow and found the armchair was red rather then blue, it would still be an arm chair, still be in my lounge room, still be a piece of furniture, still be worn on the arms, still be solid... the list of things that would not have changed is innumerable. And far outweighs the change in colour of the arm chair. If the arm chair changed to red, I might well seek an explanation. It seems perverse to seek an explanation as to why it stayed blue. That's what arm chairs do.

But hat sort of thing doesn't happen much.

So, which is more reasonable - to supose that it really is an arm chair, and sit on it to do these posts, or to do as the OP suggests and look for a justification that it is an arm chair?

Why should I doubt, here?

If nothing else, it will be a lot less effort.

The arm chair does consistently behave as expected.

No, just pleased to get a bit of harmony.

It's a rare thing.

Wow.

Cheers.

Think that made my day.

@Jamal, any chance of closing this thread, here?

Seems an appropriate point.

Thanks, Srap.

I think I agree.

But I walk away from "perception" because it is seen as private. Seems to me that form a Wittgensteinian perspective, perception as a private experience drops out of the language game.

That is, roughly, that if what counts as a block is constituted by the language game, then so is what is perceived as a block.

Neither the block nor the perception of block are outside of the game.

Not as clear as I'd like. This is not to say that there is nothing more than language. There certainly are blocks.

Pointing already is a language game.

It's only a block so far as it participated in the game of building.

This is of course quite contrary to the view that there are already blocks outside of the language game.

You think there is a right way to philosophise, right? — Skalidris

Very much, no.

But there is bad philosophy.

And Picasso went to art school. Picasso’s early training at formal art schools like the Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando in Madrid gave him a strong grounding in classical techniques: anatomy, proportion, perspective. But rather than remain within those bounds, he systematically took them apart. His innovations—especially in Cubism—can be seen as a radical deconstruction and reassembly of that academic foundation.

but i'm personally interested in how you get from "stuff" to "blocks" without already playing the game? — AmadeusD

To play the game is to move blocks and apples around. What counts as a block or an apple is constituted by the game, as much as prior to the game.

Ok, so how would you proceed?

Sure, the world is sometimes not as expected. But we can see this only becasue overwhelmingly it is coherent. Chairs do not turn into cats, chalk is not democracy and so on.

The point being made is that doubt takes place against a background of certainty.

If I've misrepresented you, show me how. Is what I've said above, wrong? How?

And I agree with you that sometimes we are surprised or mistaken. My point is that this can only take place if we are usually unsurprised and correct.

The Gavagai thought experiment is of a linguist attempting an interpretation of a language. The point is that the linguist doesn't need to decide the referent of "Gavagai" in order to participate in the form of life consisting partially of the hunt and the feast.

We don't need determinate meaning to get on with the language games nor with the forms of life.

We assume we are similar forms of life. — Hanover

I don't think that quite right. We might participate in a form of life or a language game, without sucha n assumption.

Hence my reference to the Gavagai example. We don;t have to assume that Gavagai means "un-detached rabbit part" in order to participate in the hunt and the feast.

Seems to be pretty much the question I asked here:

that not all language games involve justification. — Banno

However, language games are embedded and make use of stuff in the world - apples and blocks and so on. Hence they presume the world is a certain way - that it contains blocks and apples.

So I think the general point remains, even if not all langauge games are explanations-justifications.

What do you think?

Could dolphins have a form of life so different to our own that we could not understand it?

If so, how would we recognise it as a 'form of life"?

for example, demonstrating how our methods of justification apply across various language games within our form of life. — Sam26

My OP on two ways to do philosophy is along these lines.

Explanation - or justification - requires a contrast between what is explained and the explanation. For an explanation to function it must take what is being explained as granted - an explanation as to why the wasabi plants are thriving grants that the wasabi plants are thriving. The explanation explains and accepts something external to itself.

What our explanations - justifications - have in common is that there is something to justify. What our language games have in common is that they are embedded in the world, and together they make a form of life.

It's not clear that there is a decline in creativity in philosophy.

It won't do just to assert such a thing. It certainly is insufficient to base such a far reaching statement on "what I've seen".

But further, an undergrad in engineering or archeology, learning the intricacies and methods of their specialisation, would be misplaced in thinking that all there was to engineering or history was stuff already done, and no creativity. An engineer without a background in engineering would not be a good idea.

Especially if they are being creative.

Better that they understand the methods of engineering before they get to design a bridge.

It would be a mistake to think someone unfamiliar with engineering principles is in a better position to design a bridge simply because they are "unburdened" by past knowledge. Quite the opposite: without an understanding of load-bearing, stress tolerances, and material behaviour, their creativity is not just useless—it’s dangerous.

Criticism is the wellspring of creativity, not the undoing.

We criticise to question assumptions, reframe issues, and make space for alternatives. The most original thinkers—Plato, Kant, Wittgenstein—were relentless critics of the traditions they inherited. That’s not the death of creativity; it’s the engine.

Folk want the world to be unpredictable in order to suit their heroic philosophical narrative, but predictably go to the shop to buy their sausages.

They type on their device fully expecting a reply from Banno, and sometimes get one.


There's a truly extraordinary lack of self awareness in complaining on the internet about "the elusiveness of the real".

A foundational performative contradiction.

Perhaps a form of life can be understood via Witt’s description of a family of resemblances, which ties together discrete games on the basis of commonalities that are intertwined but not reducible to a single shared thread: — Joshs

Yep. Quite agree.

Here are all the mentions on PI:

19. It is easy to imagine a language consisting only of orders and
reports in battle.—Or a language consisting only of questions and
expressions for answering yes and no. And innumerable others.——
And to imagine a language means to imaginea form of life.


241. "So you are saying that human agreement decides what is
true and what is false?"—It is what human beings say that is true and
false; and they agree in the language they use. That is not agreement in
opinions but in form of life.

i
One can imagine an animal angry, frightened, unhappy, happy,
startled. But hopeful? And why not?
A dog believes his master is at the door. But can he also believe his
master will come the day after to-morrow?—And what can he not do
here?—How do I do it?—How am I supposed to answer this?
Can only those hope who can talk? (only those who have mastered
the use of a language. That is to say, the phenomena of hope are modes
of this complicated form of life. (If a concept refers to a character of
human handwriting, it has no application to beings that do not write.)

And from OC:

357. One might say: " 'I know' expresses comfortable certainty, not the certainty that is still struggling."

358. Now I would like to regard this certainty, not as something akin to hastiness or superficiality, but as a form of life. (That is very badly expressed and probably badly thought as well.)

So not synonymous with "language game", but more the ground on which they take place.

You're not saying anything relevant. — AmadeusD

So the topic is "On Matter, Meaning, and the Elusiveness of the Real", yet you claim that pointing out that what is real is right there before you is irrelevant.

How are we to make sense of that?

How can you see the forest?

It's extraordinary to have someone use the internet to deny that the world is coherent and predictable.

That's just not so.

I don't know what more to add. The fact that you replied to me shows that the world is pretty much as it seems.

Spot on - see hereabouts.

"the Elusiveness of the Real" is pretty much exactly wrong.

Far more instances of that assumption failing that otherwise, as I see it. — AmadeusD

Are you perhaps dropping too much acid?

Overwhelmingly, the world appears to do much as advertised.

Yep. One would presumably describe what the interactions involved in what one does, rather than list a series of acts. Your somewhat literal interpretation might miss the point that what a city is like is dependent on what one chooses to do in that city.

Perhaps we could look for a point of agreement that would allow a rest.

Do we agree that one can coherently say "I don't know"?

I had the same thought...

Seconded.

Wouldn't it have been better if I had never existed at all? — Truth Seeker

Well, if Granny Weatherwax is right, we can't possibly know what the world would be like if you never existed.

It just is as it is.

I suppose the upshot is that choices are about what happens next, not about what happened in the past.

Perhaps the hardest part of living with disability is the constant struggle to improve, to advocate for oneself, to find better ways of doing things. Every small step is so very hard. Sisyphus had it easy in comparison, at least he knew what would happen next.

Stuff that those not living with disability can never grasp.

Seems to me that the key is other people. Keep reaching out. And keep in mind that while you don't know what will happen next, sometimes things get better.

You are welcome to PM me.

philosophical detachment seeks its goal through self-transcendence rather than by bracketing out the subjective altogether. — Wayfarer

Sure.

Supose that someone claims to have achieved "self-transcendence". How could we check?

A way this thread might have gone would have been to consider hinge propositions and such. Is it that some things must to be held certain, in order to get started? It seems so, and this relates to our conversation about what "counts as..."

That would be a far more edifying approach than the present woful mess.

Becasue none of that explains the mystery of how you could suggest something so distant from what was actually said.

Which you continue to do.

Most puzzling.

You should understand that you are not alone in any of this. Not that knowing this makes it any easier, but it might take away some of the stigma.

I very much like the approach set out by Terry Pratchett in Lords And Ladies. I've mentioned it a few times hereabouts. The witch Granny Weatherwax meets her one-time lover, the wizard Mustrum Ridcully. Ridcully is full of "might-have-beens"...

‘Do you remember—’
‘I have a … very good memory, thank you.’
‘Do you ever wonder what life would have been like if you’d said yes?’ said Ridcully.
‘No.’
‘I suppose we’d have settled down, had children, grandchildren, that sort of thing …’
Granny shrugged. It was the sort of thing romantic idiots said. But there was something in the air tonight …
‘What about the fire?’ she said.
‘What fire?’
‘Swept through our house just after we were married. Killed us both.’
‘What fire? I don’t know anything about any fire?’
Granny turned around.
‘Of course not! It didn’t happen. But the point is, it might have happened. You can’t say “if this didn’t happen then that would have happened” because you don’t know everything that might have happened. You might think something’d be good, but for all you know it could have turned out horrible. You can’t say “If only I’d …” because you could be wishing for anything. The point is, you’ll never know. You’ve gone past. So there’s no use thinking about it. So I don’t.’ — Terry Pratchet

Pratchett, Terry. Lords And Ladies: (Discworld Novel 14) (Discworld series) (pp. 162-163).

Counterfactuals are recondite. You can’t say “if this didn’t happen then that would have happened” because you don’t know everything that might have happened. In your case you can't say how things would have been had you followed your parent's advice, any more than Ridcully could be sure that if he had made a different decision he would have lived happily every after.

More likely, you would be equally discontent but with a different set of issues.

"You can’t say “if this didn’t happen then that would have happened” because you don’t know everything that might have happened."

if I live in St Louis, should I move or stick? And the same if I live in Kansas City. — Srap Tasmaner

Nice. This remains unaddressed.

Perhaps it's particulars that decide the issue - a new job, a cheaper house, being near family.

And here maybe the analogy breaks. Not sure.

In fact, the Pāli texts repeatedly describe the Buddha as having abandoned all views — Wayfarer

From this perspective, he does not occupy a standpoint but has relinquished all standpoint. — Wayfarer

Disinterested doesn't mean not caring. — Wayfarer

To care is to adopt a view.

Further, how could one ever know that one sees

“things as they truly are.” — Wayfarer

Perhaps I see things as they truly are, now, without the years of meditation - who's to say? SHould i take your word for it?

Moreover, doesn't your view require that our point of view is always situated, always subjective? I the Buddha's view then, still subjective?

Take pity on us - can you see how difficult it is to reconcile your account with logic? Presumably, the logic must be in error...?

But being unsure is not the same as being utterly in the dark, or forced to act at random. — J

This seems to be the key. From what Tim has said, he does not agree. I supose he might say that you need to know what you are looking for before you go exploring. But why?