If you handle doesn't reference you, the actual person, then who is writing all those great posts? — Bitter Crank

My alter-ego, Posty McPostface. And, what wine do you suggest I buy this Friday? Hopefully something sweet and good.

You said that proper names are direct referents. "Posty McPostface" is a proper name per the definition of proper names. — Terrapin Station

No, because it doesn't denote me, the actual person posting under this nick.

You're claiming that it doesn't denote you . . . because denotation is when a name is a direct referent--which is very shallowly circular. — Terrapin Station

It makes perfect sense to me. Is Superman the same person as Clack Kent? Yes, under an alter-ego name.

What makes someone "really" some name or other? — Terrapin Station

As much as I understand Kripke it's when a name is a direct referant to the object it denotes.

Just for fun, let's imagine that you're really Ned Block.

In what way does "Ned Block" denote you and not just various people's interactions with you via however they're interacting with you, but "Posty McPostface" doesn't denote you? — Terrapin Station

Posty McPostface doesn't denote me because I am not really Posty McPostface. It's just a nick not a name.

Simply repeating that doesn't make it any less stupid.

Try answering the question I asked and maybe we can help you learn something. — Terrapin Station

What's the question again?

Maybe you don't know the conventional definition of "denote"?

From my perspective, by the way, it seems like either you're trolling or you're incredibly confused. — Terrapin Station

I'm quite aware of the definition of 'denote'. But, Posty McPostface doesn't denote me as a person on these online forums. And, I'm not trolling.

One, "Posty McPostface" is a proper name. Here's the definition of "proper name:" "a name used for an individual person, place, or organization" — Terrapin Station

Posty McPostface doesn't denote me. It denotes your interactions with me on this forum through a form of contextualism. That's all I can say.

I want to inform that I won't be able to handle the managerial aspect of the reading group. My role here is only that of an orchestrator for it.

Anyone up for the job?

Ooh, ooh, I'll participate as Statler and Waldorf. — Terrapin Station

Oh, great. Now, we have the jokester on board too. :)

What's an example of a "direct referent" that wouldn't be just a name/just a moniker? — Terrapin Station

Proper names are direct referants. Like, France, the planet Pluto, and others.

What name wouldn't be "just a moniker"? — Terrapin Station

Direct referants?

No. :razz: — Terrapin Station

Hmm, what's the difficulty in stating that I am not Posty McPostface? Posty is just a moniker. The direct referant is lacking. I'm just a figment of your imagination.

Oh, I don't know - I think we can make pretty good inferences from observed behaviour. I'm not going to conclude that there is nothing intentional going on behind your posts. — Banno

Well, @StreetlightX has posted an illuminating post here. What do you think about his behaviourism?

I like his philosophy of mathematics. — macrosoft

What is that? I'm interested in your input on the matter.

Not a fan? — macrosoft

No, just haven't made it through the book. It's a difficult book by my standards. I mean, nobody discusses the philosophy of mathematics by Wittgenstein either due to the gravity of the material.

The trick is to recognize that all names - even the most seemingly concrete, 'real' instances of them, like Abe Lincoln or Amelia Earhart - 'refer' in the exact same manner as do names like Santa Claus or Pegasus. All names are 'empty names'. There is no difference in kind between the two apparent 'types' of referring. This is because language is entirely indifferent to questions of 'reality' or 'existence': in language, both Pegasus and Lincoln belong to the same existential plane, as it were. — StreetlightX

I'm not disagreeing, but, you seem to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Some names have a direct reference. Nonsensical, sensical, and senseless propositions derive their meaning from what reference they have. Think, the present King of France is bald.

Whether the object referred to by the name is real or fictional, the name is still given meaning by the existence of that object in our perceptions. — NuncAmissa

So, it's all mental? Otherwise, what is an "object in our perceptions"?

Posty McPostface has meaning to me. — I like sushi

Ah, but only to you, Mr. Sushi. It's not a shareable meaning that you or I can discuss at leisure. The meaning is hidden from plain sight.

I don't at all have a different personality online than I do offline, by the way. That doesn't mean that I'm "just one way" all the time, but I'm not "just one way" online all the time, either. — Terrapin Station

But, surely "Terrapin Station" or "Posty McPostface" don't denote the same person posting under that name? I am Posty, but, I am not Posty. Does that make sense?

A “companion” meaning what? — I like sushi

Meaning, a reading guide to the PI. We would follow one chapter or less at a time.

I just ordered On Certainty. — macrosoft

Oh dear. That book is impenetrably dense.

Oh, okay. Hope all goes well.

How exactly are you going to go about this? I’m interested. — I like sushi

By astutetly following a companion on the topic.

We don't know about intentional affect quite yet. What we're left with is behaviorism. The cat behaves this way to elicit a response, not that it 'understands the concept of being a pain'.

But the distinction was clear and apparent to your mind? So was it in mine.

Sadly, I have no philosophical background. No books, no authors, no whatsoever.
Do you have any good philosophies out there that you might recommend to a beginner like me? — NuncAmissa

Well, you're in the right place. I hope to begin this reading group in two days when this thread dies down. Friday we'll be starting. Personally, I would recommend Bertrand Russell. Others will differ obviously.

Heidegger — macrosoft

The ambiguity of what he writes about has scared me from treating him seriously. I value preciseness in meaning and clarity in thought above all else.

Thanks! — macrosoft

:up:

If I can pop in, I am reading Groundless Grounds right now. It concentrates on what Wittgenstein and Heidegger have in common. It's written by Lee Braver, whose two favorite philosophers are...Wittgenstein and Heidegger. Beyond that it's just very good so far. — macrosoft

Interesting recommendation. I might have to pick up that book myself, heh.

So I'd say it's worth considering. (And I am interested in looking at PI again and joining the thread..) — macrosoft

Awesome to have you on board.

From those definitions, we can assume that whatever makes a person feel whole is a necessity. I believe Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a great answer to this. — NuncAmissa

Well, I can't argue with that. I think you and Maslow already hit the nail on the head with this one.

That is a great challenge. I need to think about that. — Valentinus

Okay. I have someone in mind. Like PMS Hacker. I also think something from Routledge might be appropriate with the audience. In fact, I'm recommending something simple, as the book is long and can be a challenge. (I doubt we'll get through the whole thing, for the matter.)

The idea that we can stop repeating certain arguments is attractive. — Valentinus

Hit the nail on the head with this comment. Philosophy was never the same after the PI.

Do you have any recommendations for a companion to use alongside the PI?

Vodka is very popular with Russians and as a mixed drink, especially for American females. I think of vodka as a diluted ("cut") moonshine. While vodka can be up to 100 proof (50%) moonshine is 99% (198 proof).

Tequila has a distinct natural flavor to it which I like. I like gin also. It also has a distinct flavor to it. — hks

Personally, all I can afford nowadays is beer. Some cheap malt liquor does the trick; but, I try and stick with something not as cheap as that. I think my next visit at the liquor store will be for some sweet wine.

I come to this forum to learn more about other people's views about philosophy. For example there are those who revere Plato. I myself do not however. I revere Aristotle more. — hks

But, they aren't actual people. They're just constructs of one's imagination, both yours and mine through online interactions and stuff like that. I mean, I don't want to resort to referring to solipsism; but, online life is insulated and detached from the world in many regards.

I don't think of you as a fictional character. I think of you as a living persona. — hks

But, surely we don't live on this forum (maybe apart from me). This online persona is just a fiction of your imagination of sorts. The name "hks" is someone who is posting on an online forum, not the same thing as the person who is posting under that moniker?

How do you like my new avatar? It is a bottle of my favorite tequila! — hks

I wish I could have some. I like vodka sometimes. Tequila isn't my first choice at the liquor store.

And Posty McPostface is your moniker. It is not empty. — hks

I disagree. Posty McPostface is simply an online personality I have created. It doesn't denote anything apart from the contextual definition derived through my interactions with you on this forum.

So your name is not totally empty. It refers to you yourself.

You have simply chosen to rename yourself. — hks

But, what "Posty McPostface" or "hks" refers to is surely not the same person or obtains to the same person in reality. Does it? Superman and Clark Kent are two different entities (names) even though they "refer" to the same person. One is an alter-ego and the other is just a journalist.

Sam26 has done an excellent job but he just left the forum. — Valentinus

Did he leave for good? Oh dear, this is news to me. What a loss if it is permanent. I know he's busy writing a book and all; but, I do hope he can visit us once in a blue moon.

I guess my first question is why you want to start over. — Valentinus

I think just to get a better grasp on the book. I was unsure if I should skip it after my Ongoing Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus thread and delve into Naming and Necessity by Kripke.

What do you think?

Thank you. Your advice is welcome and appreciated. :)

Ah, I see. Well that's just the nature of the topic I suppose. I can try and fiddle around with adding some content but I don't think I can change anything substantial. If you still think it should remain here then oh well, so be it.