If I recall correctly, @I like sushi, is still the leader.

Can I get a quick vote on whether we should proceed with or without a companion, like say PMS Hacker or have a short read on Cavell’s paper “The Availability of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy”?

3) In terms of the larger issue of empty names, the original question merely asked how supposed empty names can have meanings. One possible way they can have meanings is under a correspondence theory of truth, according to which, strictly speaking, the truth value of any such name will always be false because there is no such actual thing in the world like "Pegasus" or "santa claus". (I take it generally that a consequence of any correspondence theory is that there are really only two possible meanings for any proposition: true or false) — Mentalusion

But, doesn't the fact that Pegasus or Santa have meaning without material ontological significance in some way refute the strictly material correspondence theory of truth?

Yes, I'm assuming a correspondence theory. I'm not sure how it side steps any questions though. — Mentalusion

In the correspondence theory what objectifies, through denotation or maybe descriptions, meaning? Contextualist or pragmatic interpretations give rise in my view to what @andrewk has posted about the topic.

Re, the last paragraph, does that simply sidestep the issues the correspondence theory of meaning has wrt. to empty names and instead advocate a contextualist/pragmatic approach to meaning?

Yes, I stand corrected. If memory serves me right he didn't even want the blue and brown books published.

No, I actually think this is irrelevant. — Metaphysician Undercover

Please help me recall, anyone, as I have poor memory.

Did Wittgenstein not prep students with the blue and brown books used in his lectures before moving onto the Investigations?

I think the answer to the question creativesoul brought up inadvertently can be found in this passage:

I hope the idea of fixing the reference as opposed to actually defining one term as meaning the other is somewhat clear. There is really not enough time to go into everything in great detail. I think, even in cases where the notion of rigidity versus accidentality of designation cannot be used to make out the difference in question, some things called definitions really intend to fix a reference rather than to give the meaning of a phrase, to give a synonym. Let me give an example. 7t' is supposed to be the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Now, it's something that I have nothing but a vague intuitive feeling to argue for: It seems to me that here this Greek letter is not being used as short for the phrase 'the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter' nor is it even used as short for a cluster of alternative definitions of 7t', whatever that might mean. It is used as a name for a real number, which in this case is necessarily the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Note that here both ' 7t" and 'the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter' are rigid designators, so the arguments given in the metric case are inapplicable. (Well, if someone doesn't see this, or thinks it's wrong, it doesn't matter.) — Kripke pg. 60

That is the way that PI is written, scattered and not formed into a coherent whole. If a companion provided us with a coherent whole it would be a faulty interpretation. — Metaphysician Undercover

Hence should we be aware of the significance the blue and brown books may have on this discussion?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_and_Brown_Books

Has anyone proposed using any kind of companion where we can refer some of these questions about ostensive definitions and such? Everything seems scattered and not formed in a coherent whole, that using a companion would provide.

I'd be interested in anything from Routledge.

When it is harder to suffer than change, we change. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

This. :sparkle:

I am thrilled to hear that you are taking a proactive position and not a reactive position to the real burdens you are bearing in life. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

What I wonder these days is if it was some self-imposed masochistic test of willpower or an exasperated desperate attempt to stop wallowing and be productive, or just some form of escapism. I'm pretty sure it wasn't pure hedonism.

I don't know the ratios of what made that idea appealing at the time; but, it won't happen again.

We talked a little about my problem with substances in PM chat some time ago. Today I have a meeting at my local clinic to address that issue. ADD is a real burden and I hope my p-doc can prescribe me at least Strattera. I also need to set up an appointment with a new therapist. So, I'll be trying to work on myself in the meantime by re-reading the Enchiridion by Epictetus and the Meditations by Marcus Aurelius.

As to what instantiates a who in a state of affairs is another question worth exploring in my opinion, @Banno.

I think this goes back to your reply to my question about the "criteria of/for identity".

I'm currently on page 60 of the book.

So while being president of the U.S. in 1970 designates Nixon, it is a nonrigid or accidental designator. — creativesoul

I'm not quite sure. It seems to me that the rigid designator isn't the state of affairs here because those can be contingent. The rigid designator is who and not; what, when, where, how.

Postys on downtime. I hope others can contribute.

Can I request that a moderator rename me to "Wallows".

Much appreciated.

So, full disclosure. I and Waya have been in a relationship for almost a month. I didn't dump Waya, I dumped myself; because, I can't take care of myself, am broken inside, live off of disability, and the feather that broke the camels back was when I recently decided self-medicating a stimulant (meth) would be a wise idea. The only reason I did this is that obtaining a script for Adderall or Desoxyn is too expensive for me to be able to realize. With all this shit hanging around me, I realized that Waya deserves a better boyfriend who isn't burdened with all these vices or impediments.

That's all I wanted to say.

I'm sorry to hear @Waya. I hope you can accomplish what you set your mind to because I know you can.

I agree.

Go on...

Again, I see Kripke here as setting up a decent modal grammar for English, by interpreting his more formal modal logic in English. — Banno

Please elaborate on that. I'm stumped by "trans-world identification" as I'm on page 44.

Hmm, so basically through continuing through the developing a relationship, but must have love in order to do so. Right? — Waya

Yeah, I think so. I just don't know how to analyze intents. Do you?

So the question is, are "soul mates" born to fit each other, or can this be developed through time and communication? — Waya

I think that people can become soul mates through matching their values and wants. This can only be born out of 'love'.

I think of possible worlds as being stipulated: that is, we set them up as we want them to be. hence,

A possible world is given by the descriptive conditions we associate with it. — Banno

Can you clarify your terms by which you mean "stipulative"?

I haven't read much else though, so I'll investigate. — Janus

http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html

@Banno.

Kripke talks about "criteria of identity". Can you elaborate on this?

The question of essential properties so-called is supposed to be equivalent (and it is equivalent) to the question of 'identity across possible worlds'. Suppose we have someone, Nixon, and there's another possible world where there is no one with all the properties Nixon has ill the actual world. Which one of these other people, if any, is Nixon? Surely you must give some criterion of identity here! If you have a criterion of identity, then you just look in the other possible worlds at the man who is Nixon; and the question whether, in that other possible world, Nixon has certain properties, is well defined. It is also supposed to be well defined, in terms of such notions, whether it's true in all possible worlds, or there are some possible worlds in which Nixon didn't win the election. But, it's said, the problems of giving such criteria of identity are very difficult. — Kripke pg. 42

SO the point here is that what is a priori are things we know; it's an epistemological notion.

But that necessity is a metaphysical notion - it's necessary if and only if it is true in all possible worlds.

SO there is no simple relation between the two. — Banno

Understood. So, how does baptism occur? What are causal links? Ontologically speaking.

As Ashleigh Brilliant says (paraphrased): My biggest problem is what to do about all the things I cannot do anything about — Janus

Hence, Stoicism? I've always preferred Stoicism over Buddhism due to its modern appeal. The Enchiridion is a fantastic book, that I often think about.

Yes, but it often seems to be somewhat patronizing, to come from a sense of superiority as though "We know better". — Janus

Well, that's certainly not the intent of compassion. I often conflate compassion with empathy; but, it seems to me that there is a sincere desire to share with others in their toil and suffering. Hence, I view anyone as saying "I am enlightened" to be full of himself or herself.

Perhaps it is a bit tedious, but to steal from Wittgenstein, all we have done so far is to put the pieces on the board; the game hasn't quite started yet. — Banno

Then please continue. I'm on page 34, reading about the a priori and necessary.

I wonder whether, given the immense diversity of human nature, one person's harmony of the spirit is not another person's disharmony. — Janus

That's a difficult question to ascertain. I think, that the Buddhist is very sensitive towards the affect of others, given their esteemed 'compassion'. Hence, the need to isolate from the problems of the world? I don't know how the Dali Lama get's up every morning and dismisses the negativity of the world. Should I meditate more?

Is meditation self-actualization? The K or Buddist seemed to have ignored the need for esteem and instead jumped all the way to the very top of the pyramid.

Yes, they do generally seem to be rather restricted in their behavior and their moral attitudes to the human behavior; particularly in regards to homosexuality, the pleasures of the flesh, forms of entertainment, intoxicants, partying hard and so on. Of course, I have no doubt there are exceptions! — Janus

Yeah, nothing more or less than pure compassion and harmony of the spirit. I adopted the Buddhist attitude towards such matters of turning off the TV, and "disconnecting" from the world. In fact, all I do nowadays is just wallow or post here. That's the height of my feelings of bliss and equanimity.

Just figurative speech. I always held Buddhists to be linear in their affect and personality. No hype, jazz, or drama.

Mhm. No more wearing masks can be a challenge in this parade called "life".

I think enlightenment is really just being yourself, being relaxed and living in the present. — Janus

Hmm, being "yourself" seems pretty hard to do nowadays. Heh.

Looks like this is turning out to be a dialogue between us two @Banno. Hundrum, meh.

I am extremely doubtful about the veracity or even coherence of the common notion of enlightenment as some kind of esoteric, higher, objective knowledge. — Janus

Then, what is it?

You can say that a name rigidly designates an object. — Snakes Alive

But not the other way around, yes?