Yes, it was an extraordinary piece of work.

I think it is fair to say anything in direct conscious attention is being ‘questioned’ to some degree. — I like sushi

Why? I'm "questioning" the floor of this room...

Because it registers on my mind — Beena

So you have a good feeling about this. That makes no difference to us. Why should we care?

Every idea, statement, assertion and belief is subject to doubt... — Vera Mont

Why?

On the contrary, it would appear that some things must be held indubitable in order for others to be doubted.

Example already given.

Why? — Vera Mont

Because you seem'd so certain in your doubt...

So we agree that there are certainties, that some things are indubitable. Cool.

I feel that somethings are undeniably true — Andrew4Handel

Yep. It's easy to find a few examples. See above.

Just pointing out that there are things that you do not doubt.

Sure, ask folk to show why they take something to be true. While you are at it, ask folk why they doubt stuff, too. It goes both ways. Sometimes doubt is unreasonable.

Yes, if they asserted that some truths are indisputable. — Vera Mont

Are you happy to doubt that you are reading this?

Your replying would surely show your doubt to be misplaced.

At the least, while you might be able to doubt anything, it makes no sense to doubt everything. And I mean that quite literally - in order to doubt, you need to hold something firm. To doubt that the cardiologist knows about hearts is to admit that there are cardiologists and hearts.

↪Banno — Gnomon

What?

What?

Above came as a revelation to me from heaven. — Beena

This has the same methodological problem as your other thread.

Perhaps you might get back in touch with heaven and have them reveal it to everyone?

Heaven has a history of being too selective.

Heaven revealed this to me. — Beena

But not to us. Why should we take your word for it?

...simple concepts? — Moliere

This is one of the more important criticisms of the ideas of the Tractatus, made early on in the Investigations - up to about §60, but see especially §47 - 48. And there is the following, that anticipates Gavagi:

What is going on when one means the words “That is blue” at one time as a statement about the object one is pointing at a at another as an explanation of the word “blue”? Well, in the sec- ond case, one really means “That is called ‘blue’”. a Then can one at one time mean the word “is” as “is called” and the word “blue” as “‘blue’”, and another time mean “is” really as “is”?
It can also happen that from what was meant as a piece of infor- mation, someone derives an explanation of a word. [Here lurks a superstition of great consequence.]

Can I say “bububu” and mean “If it doesn’t rain, I shall go for a walk”? It is only in a language that I can mean something by something. This shows clearly that the grammar of “to mean” does not resemble that of the expression “to imagine” and the like. |p. 18 n.| — Investigations, p. 22e

Compare with

Consider "ya mnara lipo nchi". — RussellA

What does i-langage do that is not captured by "cognition"?

Go back again; in the OP posits that a linear progression of causation is the same as a closed loop of causation. That is wrong.

He then equate pi with circles and with infinity. Both of these are at best misleading.

Philosophy is not about misusing terms, as seems to think.

, I interpret his use of "infinity" as a philosophical postulation, not a mathematical proposition. — Gnomon

What could that mean? Pseudo-scientific garbage? New age postulating?

Certainly that's not philosophy, in anything more than a "pop" sense; though it is apparent from your odd threads and faux footnotes¹ that you do not understand.

Philosophy is not "making shit up", as so many here seem to think.

1. What was the remainder of the name of that article, the bit you intentionally left out? What was the topic of that article? What point did you think you were making by the pretentious footnote?

"Pi is infinity" is not a mathematical proposition?

Or will you claim anything in order to defend your account?

Note: The above theorem is an artifact of the construction of the reals as equivalence classes. The theorem only says that the CARDINALITY of pi is infinite; it does NOT say that pi has infinite MAGNITUDE. Cardinality and magnitude are DIFFERENT. pi does not have infinite magnitude. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Nice, Tones. I'll go along with that. Thanks.

Something form Hanna Arendt:

The term vita activa, comprehending all human activities and defined from the viewpoint of the absolute quiet of contemplation, therefore corresponds more closely to the Greek askholia ("un-quiet"), with which Aristotle designated all activity, than to the Greek bios politikos. As early as Aristotle the distinction between quiet and unquiet, between an almost breathless abstention from external physical movement and activity of every kind, is more decisive than the distinction between the political and the theoretical way of life, because it can eventually be found within each of the three ways of life. It is like the distinction between war and peace: just as war takes place for the sake of peace, thus every kind of activity, even the processes of mere thought, must culminate in the absolute quiet of contemplation. Every movement, the movements of body and soul as well as of speech and reason-ing, must cease before truth. Truth, be it the ancient truth of Being or the Christian truth of the living God, can reveal itself only in complete human stillness. — The Human Condition, p. 15

In response I made you and offer, which you have not responded to. — T Clark

I have responded, and here do so again. If you post, I reserve the privilege of responding; and the option of not. As, presumably, do you.

Yeah. My tongue is a bit sharp today. The truth is, folk do seek what they want, as says, and good on 'em for doing so. Who hasn't mistaken what they want for what it the case.

I put my success down to the quality of my company.

Arguably the first two sought enlightenment or an eternal reward in heaven. Kepler and Galileo present more difficult cases.

Again, just restating you position without supporting argument, as if it didn't need a one. — T Clark

Well, for those reading on - there may be some - since you do not accept the need for truth, argument is irrelevant. And it seems you cannot recognise one, when presented. So there's that.

The purpose of a fool is to provide amusement.

Ah, young @Jamal has been looking for examples of the motte-and-bailey fallacy. So you would retreat from the Bailey of replacing truth with advantage to the Motte of "people do things for their own advantage".

So you doubled down, accusing me of mere rhetoric. Well, good for you. At least there is some consistency in your inconsistency.

Because that is what forgoing truth is; rejecting the need of consistency. And if that is your approach, then well done, since you have thereby placed yourself beyond mere argument, above coherence, and beyond the reach of reason.

So I will bow to you. An ignore you for a fool.

5. Four Models of Linguistic Reference.

1. On the descriptivist model, words refer in virtue of being associated with a specific descriptive content that serves to identify a particular object or individual as the referent.

2. On the causal model, words refer in virtue of being associated with chains of use leading back to an initiating use or ‘baptism’ of the referent.

3. On the character model, words refer in virtue of being associated with regular rules of reference. Paradigm rules of this sort will themselves allude to repeatable elements of the context, identifying which of these elements is the referent for which sort of term.

4. On the intentionalist model, words refer in virtue of being used, intentionally, to refer to particular objects. In other words, words refer in virtue of their being uttered as part of complex intentional acts which somehow target particular objects or individuals.

Interesting that these do not appear mutually exclusive... There's no obvious reason that all three could not be true in various circumstances... not reason we have to choose one as preeminent.

My friend Bruce ordered burgers for us yesterday, giving his name. It was misheard as "Chris", but despite that we managed to get the order.

The name is unimportant so long as you get what you want... meaning is use.

Dyslexia lures.

I get that.Yep. But there remains a problem with that description. Theosophy and such new age stuff and religion more widely sought to find the truth, a description of how things are with regard to the relation between god and the universe and everything. in assuming this could be found it methodological tied itself to what is the case. Science will always do a better job of telling us what is the case.

This by way of agreeing that "the issue is bound up with the emphasis on 'belief'"

But what is at stake here is not what is the case. It's what to do.

So to reiterate, science cannot replace religion because science tells us how things are, while if religion has any value it is by way of telling us what to do.

And the further step is that in that very regard, religion fails.

, notice that "Batchelor" is not a proper name.

The word works, despite there never having been a baptism.

So on two accounts, the causal chain theory does not seem to apply here.

Cheers. I'll take your word for the exegesis, and move on, since Aristotle's notions of causation are somewhat anachronistic. That is, our understanding of causation has moved on somewhat. My involvement here is to point point out the obvious poverty of some of the arguments.

That is not the sum total of the subject although it's an important part. — Wayfarer

Yep.

Well, we can go in to why religion fails to provide moral authority, if that suits. It's basically because dogma is algorithmic, while making choices as to our behaviour cannot be. No mere moral rule can possibly give the right course of action in every case.

Making decisions as to what we ought do is not an algorithmic process. But dogma is algorithmic.

Or if you want a more direct argument, the decision to adhere to this or that religion is already a moral decision. And this circularity is vicious, each religion forming it's own bubble of self-justification. Hence they provide no guidance as to which of them to choose.

But, and here we have previously agreed, there is much to be said for Awe. And some small place for ritual in times of pain.

The tools of philosophy are the words they use, so it is best we use them with due diligence.

The account in the OP is as follows:

...if infinite causes are the chain of sequences ad infinitum does such a chain not imply a closed loop... — invicta

And the clear answer is no, it doesn't. There is a difference between an infinite progression and a loop.
When this was pointed out, Invicta doubled down:

If you only knew Pi, which you obviously can’t as it’s irrational and infinite …could you draw a circle? — invicta

Of course, we do know pi. A formula for it was given above, and the definition is the subject of primary school mathematics. The discussion continued with Invicta playing on the two meanings of "irrational", only to arrive at

A circle is a very close approximation of Pi which is infinity itself. — invicta

...which as i said, is gobbledegook. A circle is no more an approximation to pi than a fish is an approximation to a democracy; And Pi is not infinity itself.

Philosophy is about getting the words right. you, @Invicta and have yet to understand this.
And isn't far ahead of you.

The difficulty with science replacing religion is that it provides no basis for moral judgements, — Wayfarer

I concur, and said as much earlier.

The trouble is, while religion pretends to moral authority, it repeatedly fails.

So there can be no argument that we must adhere to religion in order to have a "moral compass" or some such.

A circle is a very close approximation of Pi which is infinity itself. — invicta

You would deny Invicta the privilege of meaning what he says?

Then you are harder on him than even I.

I don't see anything like the argument suggested in the OP, in the SEP article.

The opposite of science is art. — HarryHarry

No it isn't.

God did it. — unenlightened

Someone's gotta fill in the gaps.

The OP looks like an abortive attempt to defend the doctrine of original sin.

So are human beings good or bad — invicta

The blatant fallacy inherent in the phrasing of this question is black-or-white.

It's a shit OP.

Then it's hard to see what an I-language could be.

seems to have avoided this conclusion by enlarging the notion of innate concepts to include everything, at least up to carburettors. One is left to ponder what concepts are not innate. If all concepts are innate then why bother making the distinction? would both eat the cake that all sentences are true by convention while keeping the cake that some sentences are true by the meaning of their terms.