Stage 2: This requires differentiated being — tom111

This is something like what I've said before in that mathematics is based on the idea that there are categories of things. For there to more than one of anything means that you have established some sort of categorical system where similar objects are part of the same group to say that there is a multitude of those things. If everything were unique the we would have no basis to claim that there is two or more of anything. There would only be one of everything. How can one do math if there was only one of everything?

Logic also involves causation. Logic is a type of thought process that we were born with. We take in information, integrate it with our current knowledge and produce meaningful outputs. We reason our way to conclusions. Conclusions must logically follow the premises to be considered proper thinking. We were also born with emotions and start from a place of almost complete ignorance - with very little experience to base our first perceptions of the world on. As we get older we begin to understand what good thinking entails - what thought processes produce the best results - and we call those thought processes "logic" to help us distinguish between logical fallacies and logical thought processes.

Where did logic come from? Natural selection.

Ask AI how did logic evolve and you something like this:
"In evolutionary psychology, logic is understood to have emerged as a cognitive adaptation to solve adaptive problems in ancestral environments. It's not a single, isolated trait, but rather a set of cognitive mechanisms that allow for effective problem-solving, decision-making, and reasoning, ultimately contributing to survival and reproduction."
-Google AI

If science only becomes science when it is testable, then a great deal of what scientists do, especially theoretical work, is philosophy and not science. So, like I said, the line is not very clear by this criteria, or at least it fails to corresponds to common usages. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I was thinking about it a bit more and can see philosophy, with the application of logic, tests the theories for soundness, while science tests them by experimentation - a process involving both logic and observation. So, philosophy and science done well would be where the conclusion reached passed all, or at least most, of the tests each one performs.

Right, become the former are seeking different ends from the latter. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Seems like you're just defining "intent" here.

Potentially. That's a question ethics and politics studies, the role of the "common good" being key here. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not when the "common good" is bad for the individual. The good of the individual vs the good of the group is a well-known ethical dilemma and has not been settled as far as I know.

Good questions. The difficulty in answering these are precisely why I don't see a particularly strong line between the two. — Count Timothy von Icarus

If you're having difficulty answering the questions then how can you say whether there is a strong line or not? The point of asking the questions was to try to get at whether there is a strong line between the two or not, and if the distinction is useful or not. The conclusions reached in any field of knowledge must not contradict the conclusions reached in another field. All knowledge must be integrated. The field of genetics integrates well with the field of biology. The field of quantum mechanics does not integrate well with classical physics. The interpretations of what the science of QM is showing would be in the domain of philosophy as none of them are testable at the moment.

In this context, I meant philosophically helpful or provocative -- something worth our time to understand. Is there a way you prefer to think of it? -- I'm certainly not married to this one. — J

I would define useful as being applicable in real-world situations and produces the expected results.

What does "philosophically helpful" mean if not helpful in extending language's holiday?

I take your use of "provocative" to mean that it causes one to reflect upon the usefulness of one's own ideas in contrast with a different idea, or to think differently about something in a way that is useful, with usefulness being defined here as I did above.

This is why I'm saying that philosophy as language on holiday is not useful as I have defined it. It's just scribbles that are not applicable to the world as we know it, and might never be applicable, so it's only use could be to provide some social benefit by using language in artful ways, not to say anything useful about the world.

I'm not really sure why these should be different. Ethics is the study of ends. Politics, as a sort of archetectonic study of ends in the broadest sphere possible, is both a study of what people do and what they would benefit from doing, and this is recognized in the contemporary social sciences. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Ethics is not necessarily the study of ends, but the ends in relation with some intent because we see people that accidentally caused harm different than people that intentionally caused harm.

What people do and what is best for them is different than what an individual does and what is best for the individual, which could conflict with what is best for the group. The questio s and conclusions of ethics and politics are subjective and why science doesn't bother with them.

To be fair, it is counterintuitive because for the entirety of linguistic human history we have thought and spoken about language as having supernatural powers. — NOS4A2

:smile:
Ironically it is only our native language that has this supernatural power as hearing a language I don't know has no supernatural power over me.

But you made a distinction between philosophy and science. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Only when it comes to providing answers. The only way we obtain the answer is by testing all possible answers. An untestable answer is just as valid as all the other untestable answers.

As commonly conceived, philosophy deals in observations all the time. This is true of phenomenology, ethics, metaphysics, etc. Is the claim that whenever these involve observation they are actually "science" and not "philosophy?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

Isn't logic a fundamental branch of philosophy and isn't rationalism vs empiricism a philosophical debate? I think the claim that philosophy deals in observations all the time is suspect.

Do you agree that science also deals in observations (all the time)? If so, then dealing in observations is neither philosophical or scientific, but something else and philosophy and science would be types of this something else. What is that something else?

Do you agree that philosophy and science both deal in rationalism (all the time)? Are there any irrational scientific theories? Can there ever be such a thing as an irrational scientific theory? Is there such a thing as an irrational philosophical theory like in the fields of religion and politics?

If both philosophy and science deal in observation and rationalism (all the time), then dealing in observation and rationalism are not defining qualities of either. What makes them different is their defining qualities and the difference is in how testable the answers to any question we pose are.

Yes, I would have an emotional reaction to the news. I am disgusted and angry even considering your example. But it is I who evokes the emotion, drawn as they are from my own body and actions, influenced entirely by what I know, think, understand, believe etc. The words are not responsible in any way for what I feel. — NOS4A2

Exactly. And a psychopath would probably not have any emotional response at all, or if they did would probably experience the opposite feelings you are, and Relativitst's example doesn't seem to take this into account.

Their arguments continually keep missing the mark. While they are focused on the cause, we are focused on the effect, or more specifically the difference in effects given the same cause. They refuse to explain why there is a difference in effect given the same cause and given determinism is true.

I dunno, the aporetic dialogues of Plato seem quite useful. But we may be saying the same thing -- that aporia is an invitation to reconsider. My idea is that the reconsidering is a lot more radical than looking for a "bug" in the logic, because I think aporia is often a sign that we've set the whole problem up incorrectly. — J

Which is the same as saying that the program was written incorrectly and/or is handling input that is was not designed to handle.

Define "useful".

If you have reached the conclusion that we don't know anything [about X] - doesn't that constitute knowledge?
— Harry Hindu

Yes, but not about X. So no contradiction, I'd say. — J

Your edit of my post isn't what I intended to say.

anything = everything about every X

If you have reached the conclusion that you don't know why or how the universe (everything) exists, then aren't you effectively stating that you don't know anything about everything? Doesn't the conclusion of you not knowing anything about X create doubt in your understanding of all the other X's? If I'm wrong about X, how do I know I'm not wrong about all the other X's?

as I've said before, it seems to me that for you language is all names, that you think each word stands for something. And I think this is mistaken. I think that what counts is not what the word stands for - if anything - but what we do with our words in context.

And i think this difference prevents us seeing eye to eye. — Banno

Exactly. Context helps to establish the meaning (what a word points to) of certain words. Some words are helper words in that they establish the context of the other words in a sentence. When we have agreed that a certain scribble can have multiple meanings, we use helper words to distinguish between the multiple meanings. So we can say that the helper words point to the specific definition of another word in the sentence.

Words (scribbles and sounds) are like anything else in the world. We can use other scribbles to establish context, or something else in the immediate shared environment to establish context, like the direction you are pointing. More scribbles is just one of the possible things we could use to establish context.

This is what I mean when I say that we use the world (scribbles, sounds, braille, pointing, etc) to communicate. Scribbles are just one of many things we can use to refer to other things.

When you look at or listen to another language you do not know you see scribbles and hear sounds. You can't even tell where one word ends and the other begins when hearing a foreign language. It is only by learning the rules for interpreting the sounds does one perceive the spaces between the spoken words. The spaces is what makes language modular, where you can plug in various strings of scribbles with other strings to create new meanings. So there are times when it is useful to use a single word as pointing to something and useful to take the whole sentence as pointing to something depending on the words being used.

Sure, and that's why a charitable reading can be important. You can help make the position clearer and more compelling! (And maybe start by discarding the assumption that the person "hasn't bothered questioning it themselves." Perhaps they've done so to the best of their ability.) — J

My point was that charitability it is a two-way street. I can only help make the position clearer if the other participates in answering the questions or explaining why the question is irrelevant.

Well, showing discrepancies, that's step two, which requires a whole new mindset, I've found. Quite often, if I start by indicating that I do have some understanding of the position, and can see some value or importance, and then describe the discrepancies I also see, it's received more openly. Or not, of course! -- people get defensive. — J

If understanding is the first step, can you say you have successfully completed the first step if your questions that would help you understand are not answered (they get defensive by the simply fact that you are questioning anything they say)? When I show a discrepancy between their current claim and their prior claims is it fair to say that either I don't understand their position or their position is a contradiction BEFORE even reaching step two, and if they don't address the discrepancy by agreeing to either of those two possibilities, then what? At what point are we to say that they are simply insulting our intelligence and wasting our time?

Is the "you" here the "British 'one'" -- that is, "one should be asking oneself . . ." etc. -- or do you mean "you" as in me, specifically the position about understanding another's position that I was sketching? — J

The former.

If the conclusion you have reached is aporetic then you've made a wrong turn somewhere in your thinking and would need to reflect.
— Harry Hindu

Say more about this? I'm not understanding yet why aporia wouldn't be a possible outcome for a philosophical inquiry. — J

A possible outcome - yes. A useful outcome - no. Computers produce errors even though they are the most logical devices we know of. If the output is aporic then you need to re-evaluate the input or the program for bugs. If you have reached the conclusion that we don't know anything - doesn't that constitute knowledge - that we don't know anything and therefore creates a contradiction?

I don't agree with any strong distinction between science and philosophy, but let me ask: can we (ought we) ever ask questions about ethics or aesthetics? Would these fall under the category of "science?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

It depends on from which view we are talking about ethics and aesthetics. Are we talking about them from the "internal" position of distinguishing right and wrong and beauty and plainness, or "externally" with ethics and aesthetics simply being one of the many means humans use complex social behaviors to improve their social fitness?

At the same time, it seems that there are at least questions about what makes science a good way to know things that must be prior to science, and which tend to fall into the common box of "philosophy." — Count Timothy von Icarus

How about what makes science a good way to know things is that it is the only method that has provided answers and philosophy has provided none. Name one answer philosophy has provided that did not involve some semblance of the scientific method - observing and rationalizing one's observations.

Of course, the line between "philosophy of biology" and biology, or "philosophy of physics," and physics, is always quite blurry. So too the line between philosophy of science and epistemology and foundational questions of evidence and the role of mathematics and logic in scientific discourse and models. That's why I actually think the art/science distinction is more useful than philosophy/science. — Count Timothy von Icarus

All philosophy can do is ask questions. Will there be questions that cannot be answered? Sure, but those questions will only seek subjective answers (ethics and aesthetics from an internal view - similar to how Banno is invoking Godel in this thread), or just be silly (language on a holiday).

Because I’m trying to understand statements like this:
And this:
But then there is this: — Fire Ologist

Let me guess, you haven't received a response? I would then refer you to my post just after the one you've quoted me on here in this thread (the last post on page 2).

This implies a world we are separated from - you need there to be me and separately the world logically before there can be me “in relation with” the world. The “already” is the ontological pickle (the chicken and egg portion of the discussion), but recognizing this tension does not collapse the gap that maintains a separate world to be articulated. — Fire Ologist

Not only that but that the very scribbles and sounds that we make that manifest as language is somehow not part of the world either. We can talk about words and sentences like we can talk about cars and traffic.

My sense is that there is the world, and there is the language about the world. Language is always from the outside looking back in, fashioning a window into being. I say looking back in, because it requires reflection, a move from the world, processed in mind, back onto the world. This “back in” move reflects Banno’s “already in relation with” but accounts for the distance between me and the world that must exist for me to have a relation to the world. — Fire Ologist

Exactly. This is what I mean by language is scribble and sound usage that follow some rules. You have to use things in the world (scribbles and sounds) to communicate your "internal" ideas. The mind is just another process in the world that interacts with the rest of world to produce novel outputs in the world.

I think we precisely must assume this. There must be one true narrative, or else, all narratives are equally born and equally soon to be gone.

Maybe there is not one true narrative. But then, in such case, never can there be error or accuracy in any narratives that may arise, if one remains the narrating type. — Fire Ologist

And oh, how the same ones that say there isn't a true narrative like to say that you are wrong in yours. I wish they'd just make up their mind. Are they talking about the world, or are they just making surreal scribble art?

"You have to restrain your desire to respond and refute until you've thoroughly understood the philosopher or the position you're addressing. [And boy did he mean "thoroughly"!]. You really don't have a right to an opinion until you're sure you've achieved the most charitable, satisfying reading possible. Otherwise it's just a game of who can make the cleverer arguments." I forget this constantly, as we all do, but I still hold it as ideal. You can't start being wise until you first understand. — J

"By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third, by experience, which is the bitterest."
- Confucius

The issue I have experienced is that in trying to understand the other's position you find that the person doesn't appear to understand it themselves because they haven't bothered questioning it themselves (reflection). In trying to understand another's ideas I am trying to adopt them as my own, but I naturally reflect upon it, testing it by integrating it with other things that we know or that the other has said and find issues. When I show the discrepancies it is ignored - as if I didn't say anything (and if I didn't then why not explain why it isn't relevant if your intent is to help me understand?). I'm not asking a rhetorical question. I'm asking a question you should be asking yourself about your own position if you reflect honestly upon your own position.

It seems to me that many simply think that wisdom comes only by imitating - by referring to the group or an authority - the easy things, but does not lead to wisdom on its own.

Honestly questioning your own positions (reflection) and facing reality (experiences) are difficult. It means you have to accept that you might be wrong. I try to criticize my own position before actually submitting it for others to criticize so as to not waste time going back and forth on the trivial things. Using others to help you reflect on your own position can help you achieve a more objective view of the argument and evaluate whether it integrates well with the rest of what we know or not. This is where the experience comes in and why it is bitter. It can show you that you may have been wrong and you need to start over and reflect.

And yes, quite often the wisdom is aporetic, but that should teach us something about the nature of philosophy, not make us look forward to some glorious day when all the questions will be answered correctly, as demonstrated by superior argumentative skill. — J

If the conclusion you have reached is aporetic then you've made a wrong turn somewhere in your thinking and would need to reflect.

Philosophy is not intended to answer questions, but to ask them. The question enters the domain of science when it becomes testable, and it is here where we end up answering the question. I would just end with another quote from Confucius:
"The man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small stones".

That's not why Biden essentially allowed an open border to fester. The Biden admin wasn't that strategic. Many Democrats had come to believe the Trump admin's border policies were racist, and this led the online far left to reflexively oppose ANY immigration enforcement on Biden's part. The Biden admin thought they couldn't risk losing this segment of the party, so they let it define immigration policy, which turned out to be a mistake. — RogueAI

That is what I mean by group-hate as a product of political parties. Their hate of anyone that does not follow the party line clouds their judgement, and they often go by their own party's characterization of the opposition rather than actually making an effort to understand the opposition.

Agreed, though this seems incredibly short sighted on their part imo with the looming automation and AI revolution currently happening around us. We're headed for great depression style unemployment in the next few decades, and they're actively making the problem worse. How I wish we weren't ruled by clueless octogenarians. — MrLiminal

Not just that, but those migrants are going to get old too someday.

What is ironic is that many of the same people that vote for an octogenarian also label themselves as "progressive".

It certainly sounds metaphysical. It sounds like there certainly has to be something outside of language. Which I would agree with. — Fire Ologist

That is obvious. Why would we need Godel to explain something so trivial?

Is linguistics, the study of languages, outside of language? If not then what are linguists doing?

Witt said that many philosophical problems occur when "language goes on holiday", I agree. I think many "philosophers" tend to misuse and overuse language unnecessarily. It's more like they aren't trying to solve any problems or to express any realistic (useful) idea. They are simply using words in artful ways - scribble showmanship - almost like a battle of who can use scribbles in more unique and complex ways. It is a social game they are playing. But don't conflate the game with what language is primary designed to do - to inform. Language on holiday is like colors and shapes on holiday in a surreal painting.

I actually hate when it does personality. It's fake and manipulative, essentially regurgitating our style back to us to ingratiate itself and maximize engagement. — Baden

When a human says, "I'm sorry", how do we know they're not being fake and manipulative, essentially regurgitating our style back to us to ingratiate itself and maximize engagement?

The Democrats and Republicans are both complicit in the surge of migrants that illegally crossed the border. Both parties understand that a declining population means that it is going to be more difficult to fund social security in the future and the population needs an infusion of new tax-payers to continue to prop up these government subsidies. In a racist communist country, like China, they would rather use government power to influence baby-making rather than importing non-Asians.

Completeness for it's own sake is a problem. Much better to have an incomplete theory that is right that a completely wrong theory... — Banno

Which is just saying that to have a theory that is right is to have a theory that acknowledges all the relevant information and excludes all the irrelevant information.

There has to be something outside the theoretical construct in order that the activity of explanation has a place... along the lines of hinge propositions. — Banno

What exactly does this mean - that the universe needs something external to it to be able to explain the universe? What if there is nothing external to the universe?

To show that you and I are using the scribbles to inform others of some state of affairs, and by "using", I mean representing.

The scribble, "red" is no different than the red apple in that we all privately interpret what the red of an apple means and what a scribble means and how to use it (if the apple is red eat it, if it is black throw it in the trash, if the scribble is a word then you can use it to represent things in the world, if not then you can interpret the scribble as the outcome of purposeless natural processes, or art). A scribble is a thing like everything else that we privately interpret using our own senses and our own brain. You seem to be positing the existence of an omni-mind where the meaning of some scribble is contained.

I might have agreed before 2016, but the powers that be have shown they will do whatever it takes to prevent that from happening. — MrLiminal

The powers that be are not preventing you from pulling the lever for an alternate candidate nor preventing you from speaking your mind to others. The only way they could interfere with that is to control the elections and the internet - in which case we don't live in a democracy or representative republic, but an oligarchy that controls the flow of information.

Yep. Cool.

This might be the most common error made by folk attempting to critique private language - "But I do talk to myself privately!", and by mistaken defenders of private language arguments who supose that we cannot do something we indeed do.

What the argument shows is that the meaning of "red" is cannot be our private sensation of red, and that rather than looking for a meaning here as the thing that "red" refers to, we should look at how we use it to reach agreement on which apples we will purchase.

The puzzle is why the extension of "red" includes these apples and not those ones. — Banno

I don't need to agree with anyone to know when an apple is ripe and when it isn't. To know when an apple is ripe or not (and to know that red means ripe and black means rotten), I interact with the apple, not people.

Female peacocks don't need language or to agree with anyone that one male's plumage is more attractive than another's and means they would be a better mate.

Once an infant obtains the sense of object permanence, they understand that their mind is not the world and their experience of their mother does not exhaust what it means to be their mother, but is representative of what it means to be their mother, and that their representation can be maintained and talked about in the absence of their real mother.

Wow don't waste any more time indulging them. Hindu, is like Jordan Peterson. — unimportant

But I didn't identify as being like Jordan Peterson, and according to Moliere's own arguments one has to identify as such to be called as such.

Wants to argue semantics because they don't have the chops to actually add anything to the discussion and endlessly try and trip up the interlocutor with what they think are 'gotchas' and claim some victory. — unimportant

Sure, when someone wants to use a word in a different way than it is commonly used - as in conflating anarchy with socialism, then I am going to start discussing semantics, not because I wanted to but because the other is playing word games.

I mean, just look at your recent post to Moilere and their response:

Ok so it is not totally unfounded that anarchists have at some points in time sown discord in society. The mainstream view is not a total fabrication then. :sweat:
— unimportant

Yeh, it's not an entire fabrication -- — Moliere

So we finally have an admission that a behavior that is categorized as "anarchy" is sowing discord. Funny how you made this argument but then showed exactly what I've been asking for. :roll:

Agreed again, I just don't see a realistic way forward for that to happen. — MrLiminal

Well, being pessimistic about it - sure you won't see a realistic way forward.

I don't see a realistic way forward on many, if not most, philosophical issues, but we keep coming here and discussing them.

The realistic way forward for any philosophical idea is to actually start practicing it by not voting for Democrats and Republicans and to make your arguments to open-minded people you meet. I think that if an Independent had a decent showing in an election many people will start to jump on the bandwagon, as voting against the two-party system would be the new Progressive "call to arms".

Agreed. But 3rd parties are rarely what I would call effective at winning. I think this is a problem and at least partially due to suppression from the two major parties, but it's the reality we've been dealt. I was big into Bernie in 2016, and we saw how that went, and he wasn't even technically a 3rd party candidate. — MrLiminal

Which is why I say that the answer isn't a third, fourth, or even a fifth party, but no parties. I think the best way to obtain that is to simply stop voting for Democrats and Republicans. That would allow people like Bernie free of the group-think and the power of the heads of the party. The media would become less biased. Citizens would be forced to educate themselves about the candidates rather than looking for Ds and Rs next to people's names.

And to tie this into the subject of the thread, having no parties means that we would be less inconsistent with our concern over the inappropriate application of power when your party is in power vs the other party (selective outrage).

I think it strikes people as kind of dictatorial and goes against the example Washington set.

But you said it's a problem to have career politicians. What was the problem with FDR? FDR's best moments happened well into his 3rd term. He was a great wartime president. As long as the person has to keep getting elected, why is it bad to keep them in office? — RogueAI

Because having power over others makes it easier to keep that power by controlling the media and establishing long-term relationships with lobbyists. With new people coming in, deals would need to be renegotiated.

Instead of picking the lesser of two evils, I get to pick the more effective of two evils. — MrLiminal

There are other options on the ballot. In 2020, the argument was that you don't want to vote for the racist, DT. But Biden is also racist. There were non-racists on the ballot if that was really one's concern.

The fact that the other options didn't have a chance in that election was due more to people being uninformed of the other options. When independents outnumber Democrats or Republicans why are we not seeing equal representation in the media during the political campaigns?

My advice to your developer is that you need more training.

Why is that a problem? Lincoln made it a career and I think he was awesome. — RogueAI

Why do you think America limited the number of Presidential terms to two? I wonder why Congress doesn't do the same for themselves. They can easily write laws to control the other branches of government but can't seem to write ones that control themselves.

You provided a link to a PBS article when I'm asking for YOUR categorical observations of anarchistic, liberal and socialist behavior. Have you ever observed another person, or do you only observe internet articles? Are you an AI training bot?

I'm not a huge fan of politicians, but what you're saying strikes me as overly cynical and a kind of moral cowardice. In my life, I've seen good and bad politicians and politicians don't seem to me to be any worse than anyone else from some other similar walk of life. Doesn't saying they're all corrupt (or almost all) make it easier then to justify voting for someone you know you shouldn't be voting for? — RogueAI

When you make politics a career - that is the problem.

Is Emma Goldman not a real world example? — Moliere

of what? What did she do to qualify as such?

But then I would do the same for anarchists -- so the philosophers have been listed in this thread, and it seems to me that there are real people doing things with those theories throughout history and today so the idea that real anarchy is a total lack of order just seems ludicrous to me. And it's that picture of complete disorder that's the liberal picture -- whether you're a liberal or not, that's the general background image of the anarchist.

Or no? — Moliere

No.

So, what would a socialist call a liberal participating in an insurrection to overthrow the socialist government - fascist (since anarchists are just rebellious socialists)?

Forget about what some philosopher said. Philosophers are just humans who are trying to make sense of the world they observe. When you, Moliere, observe someone's behavior what types of behaviors would you categorize as "anarchy", "liberal", "socialist", other than them making sounds with their mouth, "I am an anarchist/liberal/socialist"? This is what I have been asking for - real world examples.

No, because you've conditioned out the context in which that is a crime. Disparaging is also a little weak to reach any kind of a legal benchmark.

He certainly could. But I highly doubt anyone would entertain that argument from someone running for President. But, as I understand the law, yes, he could absolutely sue several outlets and untold individuals for defamation. Musk could do the same. But why would they? — AmadeusD

Exactly. Conditioning out the context in which defamation is a crime is having an informed population.

Conditioning out inciting speech would also involve having an informed society. See the connection?

Eh, it's more that I think that your notion of how to look at political philosophies is flawed -- theory is important, but relying upon the meanings of words as we've come to understand them from our background is going to produce flawed results because all backgrounds are politicized. So the notion of anarchy you're espousing is something of a liberal perception of anarchy. — Moliere

You're not reading what I said. How does asserting that both socialists and libertarians have used anarchy as a means to an end espousing something of a liberal perception of anarchy? And why would I be asking for definitions of anarchy if I'm already expressing some bias? You are projecting.

My point in asking the questions that I am is to tease out those distinguishing characteristics of anarchy from all other social frameworks including liberal and socialist ones.

I think this highlights the question we're discussing. I'm just thinking this through myself, but there has to be a difference between "private language" and "private reference," doesn't there? As frank says, we don't need a private language to refer privately. We can use the community language we all know. That's not what's private about private reference -- rather, I'm arguing that it's the independence from "triangulation" or the need to have a listener comprehend the speaker's reference. I read Srap as talking about language, not reference, and if that's so, then what Srap says is clearly true: Robinson Crusoe needs to have inherited and practiced a non-private language before he can make up any designations for the flotsam that washes up on his beach. But once he does that, why would we deny that he's referring to said flotsam when he thinks about it, or perhaps makes a list of tasks? — J

What are we doing when we use a word in the community language differently (ie slang, etc)? It takes time for that use to propagate throughout the community. When does it go from being a private use to community use? Does this mean that language is rooted in private reference that has been simply been agreed upon by the community? Who invented each language? How did each language become a language? Was it the local shaman that found scribbles useful for keeping track of natural events and then taught the use of the scribbles to the community?

Well, it might be your problem, but for my part I'm calling the anarchists anarchists, rather than "confused about what they are saying because pure anarchy is NO order" -- I'm content with continuing to be wrong by that standard. — Moliere

If you're content with that then you must be content with calling people who claim to be a Dark Lord of the Sith a Dark Lord of the Sith, else you would be also be content with being inconsistent.

Then I will be in error from now until forever -- what are we to call the people who call themselves anarchists and organize anarchically and advocate for anarchic things that have nothing to do with an absence of a social framework?

Horizontalists who are confused about anarchy? — Moliere

That's the problem - believing that people who identify in some way or another are always correct in their assertion. Has there ever been a case where someone has misidentified themselves, either by accident or on purpose?

When they claim to be something, what do they mean? What characteristics are they referring to, and how are those arrangement of characteristics distinct from other types of identity?

Man, I just listed a couple of examples to show that there's stuff out there to research -- that question you posed is a good question, but also huge and I wouldn't be able to answer it well without more work. I'd also note that they're just examples -- I'd include a lot of the socialist countries on the list, and I'd include a lot of the anarchist projects often mentioned if you go through the links provided in the thread. The point of the example was to note that we at least have real examples of humans doing this, so that the animal analogies really are just analogies. — Moliere

Nonsense. I thought you did your research prior to posting your examples, or else how would you know what a Marxist is vs an Anarchist? Why didn't you just post a link to the Marxist site and claim that it is an example of both socialism and anarchism? What are the key differences? Until you provide the key differences by defining the words you are using, your examples could be considered analogies as well.

The point was that that the "anarchists" in the Spanish Civil war weren't anarchists. They were socialists participating in an insurrection.

Anarchy is the framework for both Socialists (Bolshevik revolution) and Libertarians (American insurrection of the late 18th century) to overthrow the current framework before their ideas can be fully implemented.

If you are saying that anarchists advocate for worker control and collective ownership of resources then you are conflating anarchy with socialism. Anarchy is not a social framework. It is the absence of one.