Should that have been 'Well, the term "use" defines analyticity...' as in, are you claiming Witti defined analyticity in terms of use? — Banno

Yes, how else do you define it? It's all a web of beliefs, yes?

Further, coherentism as an epistemological notion holds that what is true is what is coherent with the (vaguely defined) consensus of beliefs. In Wittgenstein truth remains undefined, leaving one, shall we say, deflated. — Banno

Well, the term use defines analyticity in accord with hinge propositions here that are coherent within the intersubjectivity of the observer and another one, (not the world).

There's some kind of obsession with claiming that communism was best exemplified with Stalin or Mao. When in fact, those types made the most amount of economic mistakes as central planners. Ho-hum.

Point those fingers.

That is, what counts as a hinge proposition is not dependent on the structure of the proposition but is a role it takes on in the task at hand. — Banno

Aren't we talking about presuppositions now? If this isn't coherentism then I don't know what is.

Given the strong ethics present in the US medical field and especially US colleges, how do you see the developments (legalistically) for transhumanism for the following years?

For example, Neuralink, by Elon Musk, hopes to address something equivalent albeit not explicitly stated to the goal of transhumanism with brain machine interfaces to keep pace with ever more intelligent computers.

What's your thoughts about this endeavor and hurdles it faces?

Sent via Twitter. He's really active, so you can reach him on any medium.

Used to keep pigs, and they liked to roam in the forest. They came home for sleep and supper, and we had to keep them in when the hunters were out looking for wild boar. The forest is a better place than the pen. — unenlightened

You'll find those forest rich with no food in no time given how many of them are in pig pens.

Maybe what you mean is that one can falsely claim to hold these values, when in fact one does not. — Bitter Crank

How is that qualified or evaluated?

Truth.
Justice.
Kindness.
Democracy.
Respect for person. — unenlightened

What about democracy? Typically, it's easier to exclude the US from analysis of this feature of wealth or poverty.

Anything on this @Baden?

*ignores the shitposting*

*then, just wallows*

What is going on, here?!

No, I haven't, not really - and I'm sure the worst practices are horrifying, but when done well, farming need not be cruel. Indeed, it's a lot less cruel than nature. — counterpunch

Nature, as in their natural habitat? Keep in mind that pigs are domesticated animals.

So, no better place for them.

The conditions of nature are pretty awful too, but tell me which you would prefer for yourself — Pfhorrest

The logic seems funny. As if nature wasn't the natural conclusion where they ought to live.

Pretty large accumulated Q/A on Quora by David Pearce:
https://www.hedweb.com/quora/index.html

Yes, it's interesting to note that for most people, hedonism is associated with this notion of drug craving or seeking. It's interesting to note that many people need peak experiences in life to endow it with meaning. Drugs like hallucinogens or cannabis can alleviate these feelings of lack of meaning in life sometimes. I also know that in 12 Steps from the AA book, it's meantioned that spiritual experiences are worth having to shift one's focus from a drug like alcohol to something more beneficial.

Mostly, that quote I made, is definitely due to addressing the misconception that drugs are needed to "boost" or constantly increase some neurotransmitters in the brain to enhance one's life.

I haven't been too active recently with drugs, as I seem past that novelty seeking behavior in a manner.

Anyway, looking forward to hearing from David Pearce.

In what way could we do more to reduce suffering without sacrificing the will of individual? I'd like to know. — Caldwell

I'm not quite sure. Coming as the average Westerner it would be mostly through the political process mostly at the moment. Then personal choices, like whether or not to eat pork or bacon, meaning veganism. On the other hand, philosophers have spoken with fervor about this; but, it seems that the gist is that it's hard to enlarge the sphere of interest that one lives in from the atomic family that struggles more or somewhat less nowadays to feed the family.

Some other thoughts is that if philosophers want to feel good about themselves then shouldn't or ought they not to concern themselves with the need of the many; yet, at what point as to entertain the need of the few vs. many?

I think, you can talk about politics all you want; but, then there are historically hurt badly folks like those spoken about by Black Lives Matter.

Otherwise, that's all I got at the moment.

Hence the necessity of Platonic realism to the natural sciences. — Wayfarer

Necessity? Or rather contingency?

I made an assumption that mathematical truths cannot be irreducibly complex, which holds for mathematical proof design or quantification of mathematical proofs. Meaning that mathematics seems to be invented rather than discovered.

Predominantly, some form of deep depression, and then somehow it lessening once realizing that I'm not the only guy depressed here.

Yeah, it's just socialist.

It is about correctly labelling China, nobody is trying to change them with labels. The CCP resembles something like Nazi Germany, an advanced capitalist economy with a totalitarian government. — Judaka

Except with everything else? It was persuasively argued before that if anything the structure has become more authoritarian only.

Never heard of the BRIC countries? — ssu

I did actually. But, it's interesting about the whole new world currency in plans by China.

Do you think it will happen?

I was recently reading on the topic of various methodologies in philosophy from Rorty, who seems pretty astute as to say that (with no comment on the Continental tradition) that philosophical methodologies have become more scientific in nature. Nominalism and methodological nominalism have prevailed as to date, and it's interesting that this is true.

Yet, I am saddened by all this proffering from science. As methodological nominalism is scientific in nature. The only piece of science that philosophy has picked up on is related to linguistic empiricism. And, that's quite interesting, due to the nature of linguistic empiricism, which has failed to pick up a universal grammar to adhere analysis by.

On the one hand, you have representationalism pretty much refuted by the linguists and on the other a strife over no universal grammar.

So, what's next for philosophic endeavors?

Interesting. It may as well have inadvertently happened from the perspective of European tradition in France or nearby.

And hereto is the prominent question of mine, wasn't the hopes of pragmaticists or pragmatists in your opinion realized by the analytic tradition?

It makes sense though, due to arising typifications in behavior or even abstracts directing the methodology to pursue extra systematic behavior or extrema's.

I read that methodological nominalism is the predominant reigning thought about methodologies in philosophy nowadays.

Especially American political commentators are keen on to look at the differences and difficulties that the two countries have, yet I think that their relations are quite OK. Neither of the countries, Russia or China, want to play second fiddle in an alliance, and why upset the US with an alliance? Hence no alliance between them. — ssu

Not a lot heard about the two cooperating, indeed. Yet, I think, China has been having a cooling of relations with the US and is looking for closer relations with Russia to support trades between the two countries. I'm somewhat mistaken to think that they were both or maybe still are still both on the same political Overton window; but, well it may as well not be true.

It's strange between Russia and China. In a manner of speech the two can accomplish great tasks if they don't fight against closer relations.

I've been surprised by how China and Russia have somewhat cold relations with one another. Although, they plan to go back to the moon soon for scientific reasons.

What's your take on the West judging whether China is really communist or not? Hilarious or just dumb?

Yes, but; aren't these further specific towards a methodology? I'm interested because in another thread I specified that the methodology is nuanced for each analytic and continental category.

Whereas, this tendency for analytic philosophy is running a little dry with the linguistic turn now coming to an end or already over.

What's next might be interesting to talk about?

what, that art is supposed to pull you away from the suffering of life? Asceticism seems to me very repulsive, especially in art. If it is a fact, it is one I am greatly opposed to. — Nagel

Asceticism doesn't have much to do with art, or does it? I simply think art doesn't necessarily distance life from itself. Schopenhauer didn't get this right with the genre. Perhaps, not entirely but somewhat in specific nuances.

Yes, but, why dirty? It's a fact of life, no?

This is true. And, Schopenhauer was happy to say so!

Nope, still the same with nothing new in the field of philosophy to the best of my knowledge. Pretty dull and lame.

All in the brain? No, the opposite - it's a public enterprise! — Banno

But, within the realm of philosophy, the linguistic turn ended in the 1990's.

Nowadays we have some stuff like possible worlds semantics with modal logic? So, did it end as Rorty said or what's on the roadmap for the next paradigm shift in philosophical endeavors?

Replace meaning with what we do with words. — Banno

Is this some intuitionalist version of meaning arising with what we do with words?

If so, we might as well and say that it's all in the brain and leave the rest to science?

Rorty also states:

It may be that what Hacking calls the death of meaning at the hands of Quine, Wittgenstein, Davidson and Feyerabend brings with it the death of philosophy as a discipline with a method of its own.

--The fifty year (now 81!) history of linguistic philosophy, a history which is now behind us, suggests that such questions are likely to prove unprofitable.

Not is meaning is just what you do with words. — Banno

Don't quite understand, what do you mean?

Davidson says at the twenty-five years postmark after Rorty publishing his Linguistic Turn in the Method of Analysis of Philosophy:

Beliefs are true or false, but they represent nothing. It is good to be rid of representations, and with them the correspondence theory of truth, for it is thinking that there are representations that engenders thoughts of relativism. — Davidson, 'The Myth of the Subjective'

Well, yes, language is that structure. — Banno

This is somewhat iffy. Because if one states the above, the implicit assumption is that somewhere meaning arises, as if through the conversation with an interlocutor.

So, the method of analysis in philosophy otherwise known as the 'linguistic turn', has dismissed 'representation' as a form of meaning. What else would you say, Banno, about other things the linguistic turn influenced inside the field of philosophy?