Indeed, a distinction that I can't make sense of. Ontology is choosing between languages. It consist in no more than stipulating the domain, the nouns of the language.I prefer to think of it more as an ontological question. — Wayfarer
This looks agreeable.An example might be helpful. I say “numbers exist”; you say “numbers do not exist”. Each of us would have to use Ǝ to formulate our position in Logicalese. What I’m arguing is that we’re each going to use Ǝ the same way, as we state our respective contradictory positions. The difference in our statements is not at the subsentential, quantifier level. We have no quarrel about "variation in quantificational apparatus." We differ on what exists, not on the use of the quantifier. — J
Isn't there variation in the domain, in what we are talking about, while quantification remains constant?To summarize: Is it the quantifier whose meaning changes, or the sentences in which the (unchanged) quantifier occurs? And if the latter, is it still QV? — J
Ok. That's right, in so far as what is enshrined in law is what we enact. But of course there is no equivalence between the law and the good. There are bad laws.Yet, take the example of good being defined, not by an individual; but, by the very values people or groups enshrine into laws. — Shawn
Do you agree with this, namely that the notion of good in inherent in the primacy of experience, and not something that can be learned by simply looking up a definition and analyzing it? — Shawn
Yes....earnestness is not imbued into what we say, it is demonstrated; as you say, it is “shown”, by not “abandoning”. — Antony Nickles
This is an excellent analysis.I would say that these “movements” and “feelings” and “actions” do not follow from the word (as if “I am earnest” were a report of something in me, and not just in the sense of a promise, though only believed as much as “I’m not lying”). Everything follows from my being convinced, my judging that you are earnest, which conclusion is “triggered” by the standards, or criteria, that we associate with earnestness—the actions and words that demonstrate you are in earnest. — Antony Nickles
Folk appear to have missed this constraint you placed on the topic.I do not here mean any sort of instrumental purpose, either as a cause or any kind of interim goal. — tim wood
But the purpose one gives to oneself, or accepts for oneself, that, it seems to me, must come from within, found or made - though maybe advised from without, thus perhaps correct to say self-given. — tim wood
"Proper function for which something exists" (EtymOnline). — Leontiskos
V. late 14c., purposen, "to intend (to do or be something); put forth for consideration, propose," from Anglo-French purposer "to design," Old French purposer, porposer "to intend, propose," variant of proposer "propose, advance, suggest" (see propose).
Generally with an infinitive. Intransitive sense of "to have intention or design" is by mid-15c. According to Century Dictionary, "The verb should prop. be accented on the last syllable (as in propose, compose, etc.), but it has conformed to the noun," which is wholly from Latin while the verb is partly of different origin (see pose (n.2)).
N. c. 1300, purpus, "intention, aim, goal; object to be kept in view; proper function for which something exists," from Anglo-French purpos, Old French porpos "an aim, intention" (12c.), from porposer "to put forth," from por- "forth" (from a variant of Latin pro- "forth;" see pur-) + Old French poser "to put, place" (see pose (v.1)).
Etymologically it is equivalent to Latin propositum "a thing proposed or intended," but evidently formed in French from the same elements. From mid-14c. as "theme of a discourse, subject matter of a narrative (as opposed to digressions), hence to the purpose "appropriate" (late 14c.). On purpose "by design, intentionally" is attested from 1580s; earlier of purpose (early 15c.). — Enynonline
...that there exists an X such that 1) X provides purpose in the world, and 2) if there be no X, then there is no purpose, that the world is without purpose. — tim wood
Aust and US are more similar that I would have guessed. — Tom Storm
Where does the dunning-kreuger effect play into this? — Benj96
So let's take it as an example.Singapore: Singapore's education system has historically placed a strong emphasis on rote learning, although there have been efforts in recent years to promote more holistic learning approaches.
Why do you care? Maybe go do what you want anyway. I'm guessing that "civilisation" will look after itself, regardless of what you do.If everyone only did work that they “loved and believed in,” civilization would collapse in a week maximum. — an-salad
How should this be understood - "Is there someone such that without them there would be no philosophy in any possible world?" Well, no, there isn't. Philosophy is only incidentally about individuals.Do you think there are philosophers who are more necessary than Plato and Aristotle? — Leontiskos
JGill is right, critical thinking is not tied to philosophy. I used critical thinking most extensively as an undergrad, in studying archeology and anthropology. But whereas other subjects make use of critical thinking, philosophy, perhaps exclusively (but psychology?), makes critical thinking it's topic. If you are thinking about how best to think, you are no longer doing maths or environmental studies, but something else.Not so sure philosopher and critical thinker are one and the same. — jgill
That's just what they want you tho think...A concerted engagement with the texts is needed if one is to decide for oneself. — Paine
Then on what basis can you be sure it was an idea, and not a sensation, a sentiment or an emotion? If the idea can't be set out, who's to say it is an idea?Imagine that one day, you get the best idea in the world. You go to tell your friend, but then you realize something: You don't have any words to describe your idea. Is this scenario possible? — Scarecow
But infinity can be expresses in language. It's a number greater than any countable number. There are other definitions, found in mathematics, which is part of our language. Sure, you can't count to infinity, but we have a pretty clear idea of the nature of infinity, well-expressed in our various languages.I can only think of one example of an idea that can't possibly be expressed using language. The idea of infinity can't be properly expressed using language, but then again, infinity is a word. — Scarecow
Do you think the emerging romantics who want to go back to the Greeks count as philosophy or is this just a romantic nostalgia project? — Tom Storm
So perhaps philosophy is a prophylaxis against propaganda; it's just that we will never be able to agree on what "philosophy" should mean. — Leontiskos
Am I right in thinking of you, Ben, as an Englishman?...global education... — Benj96
Meh. The stuff I study is fifty years out of date....the very last relevant philosopher... — Lionino
including yourself? — Paine
Not so sure philosopher and critical thinker are one and the same. — jgill
I say this by way of suggesting, at least, that it's not a malfunction so much. — Moliere
Your posing this reinforces the view that you haven't understood the misfire in your approach.A question for you. Which discipline's methods do you think are better suited for studying descriptively moral behaviors (behaviors motivated by our moral sense and advocated by past and present cultural moral norms)? I think science's methods (such as inference to best explanation) are critical. Which, if any, of moral philosophy's methods do you think would be suitable? — Mark S
I am not trying to do ethics. I am trying to 1) show how the science of descriptively moral behaviors can be useful in ethical investigations into what we ought to do, and 2), in that absence of conclusively argued-for imperative oughts, that science is an excellent source of moral guidance. — Mark S
I am not trying to do ethics. I am trying to 1) show how the science of descriptively moral behaviors can be useful in ethical investigations into what we ought to do, and 2), in that absence of conclusively argued-for imperative oughts, that science is an excellent source of moral guidance. — Mark S
None of those are views I advocate.But in your view... — Mark S