As Dylan said, "Don't criticize what you can't understand." — Hanover

I'm not sure if there's anything to understand here. Ok, you like the fact that he speaks American? Whoopty-doo, so do many other Americans.

Let's also remember that through linguistic analysis it's thought that Trump has early stage dementia. Supposedly...

The brain, more important than the mouth, is the brain. The brain is much more important.

Yes, brain good.

It's a new language.

If only statements can be truth-apt, and a state of affairs is not a statement, then a state of affairs cannot be truth-apt — Sapientia

Well, if we say: It is true, that, the cat is on the mat, then doesn't that sound redundant?

Too bad the underdog is being cheered on by the vile shit that has emerged as of recent. I don't blame all Republican's, but they aren't being vocal enough to stop the racism and discrimination being instituted on a national level...

It seems from what I gather, is that when a state of affairs, obtains, then it becomes truth-apt.

Is that correct?

OK, and this is the last part from that chapter. Further from that the issue does not continue.

And finally;

More to the point of what we were arguing over:



So, basically he (Wittgenstein) raises the issue of 'possible worlds' but neglects to pursue the matter further. Kind of unfortunate given how popular the idea is nowadays with two dimensional ism or possible world semantics (the author does note though, that Wittgenstein first brought it up though); but, that kind of clarifies the whole issue up, yes?

Read the footnotes starting with '3', then '4'. It's all in there.

@Srap Tasmaner

This is from the Scott Soames book I referenced above:

I think it's a good explanation...

:confused:

:chin:

Cool, thanks!

Sadly, or not so sadly, depending on how much you like this reading group, yes... I think so.

Haha.

Take your pick, says Piglet:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_space

And then he got rid of atomic facts - see Philosophical investigations. — Banno

As I understand it, you do believe that there's an early and later Wittgenstein. I don't think this is entirely true. After all, I think Wittgenstein wanted to publish both books side by side.

See:

This remark provides the key to the problem, how much truth there is in solipsism. For what the solipsist means is quite correct; only it cannot be said, but makes itself manifest. The world is my world: this is manifest in the fact that the limits of language (of that language which alone I understand) mean the limits of my world. (5.62)
The world and life are one. (5.621)
Original German: Die Welt und das Leben sind Eins.
I am my world. (The microcosm.) (5.63)
Original German: Ich bin meine welt (Der Mikrokosmos.)
The subject does not belong to the world, but it is a limit of the world. (5.632) — Wittgenstein

The confusion only gets clarified about this whole world/reality thing in propositions 5.6, and so on, with the limits of my language being the limits of my world and so on.

We get "world" for all obtaining atomic facts; "reality" for all obtaining and not obtaining atomic facts; I think it turns out "state of affairs" is kept around for its useful ambiguity: it covers the case where you only have a subspace defined, the case where only the positive facts are defined, and the case where absolutely everything is defined. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, this is where we differ. See:

1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
and
2 What is the case, the fact, is the existence of atomic facts.

So,

Here's one thing I keep thinking about: can we think "state of affairs" as always short for "state of affairs in logical space"? — Srap Tasmaner

yes and no? I think once again the distinction between what obtains and not is important, and atomic facts just are, where states of affairs actually obtain in reality.

2.1 We make to ourselves pictures of facts.

In other words, states of affairs.

But, then we get this, which is just confusing:

2.04 The totality of existent atomic facts is the world.

2.05 The totality of existent atomic facts also determines which atomic facts do not exist.

2.06 The existence and non-existence of atomic facts is the reality. (The existence of atomic facts we also call a positive fact, their non-existence a negative fact.)

2.063 The total reality is the world.

Therefore, some epsilon delta form of solipsism?

So, here's my short take on what I've learned thus far.

Atomic facts are like tautologies that exist in logical space and are observer independent, which are denoted as simple objects. They are true in every possible world.

States of affairs are combinations or an amalgamate of atomic facts in logical space and are observer dependent, that are denoted by an observer creating a reality of their own. They are true in each particular case.

Facts can only be described as observer dependent and hence refer to states of affairs in logical space, with an observer giving rise to their content.

OK, I'll stop there and then we can see what can be said about the world from that.

If I put it politely for you, it is play that is the beginning of knowledge. Play is imitation, recitation, messing about. — unenlightened

Yes, but we do have to know the rules of the game first, if we want to play...

One does not go looking for Roderickite that one has no idea what it is, one plays in the sand and something different comes out of that, and one calls it Roderickite. — unenlightened

I feel as though we're getting lost here. Here is the gist of the criteria for determining knowledge:

If there is any knowledge which bears the mark of truth, if the intellect does have a way of distinguishing the true and the false, in short, if there is a criterion of truth, then this
criterion should satisfy three conditions: it should be internal, objective, and immediate.

It should be internal. No reason or rule of truth that is provided by an external
authority can serve as an ultimate criterion. For the reflective doubts that are essential to
criteriology can and should be applied to this authority itself. The mind cannot attain to
certainty until it has found within itself a sufficient reason for adhering to the testimony
of such an authority.

The criterion should be objective. The ultimate reason for believing cannot be a
merely subjective state of the thinking subject. A man is aware that he can reflect upon
his psychological states in order to control them. Knowing that he has this ability, he
does not, so long as he has not made use of it, have the right to be sure. The ultimate
ground of certitude cannot consist in a subjective feeling. It can be found only in that
which, objectively, produces this feeling and is adequate to reason.

Finally, the criterion must be immediate. To be sure, a certain conviction may rest
upon many different reasons some of which are subordinate to others. But if we are to
avoid an infinite regress, then we must find a ground of assent that presupposes no
other. We must find an immediate criterion of certitude.

Is there a criterion of truth that satisfies these three conditions? If so, what is it? — Cardinal D. J. Mercier

Found in the paper referenced in the OP.

It seems clear, elegant, and simple enough, yes?

The method of F-ing about is how it actually works. — ChatteringMonkey

Hu? Hows does that work out?

Don't start with knowledge at all, start with a method - the method of no method. — unenlightened

Oh, well I have nothing to go about on here. It's just nonsense all the way down from this starting point.

"Fuck about and see what happens." There's your solid foundation. Then start giving names to what happens when you fuck about like this. — unenlightened

Can we lay off the F-bombs? Seriously @unenlightened...

Orgasms are proof that God wants us to be happy. — Bitter Crank

Yes, the Lord does work in mysterious ways.

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

There is no question whatsoever of QM 'definitively affirming' your conjecture. — andrewk

I do not understand, for I am simple and humble.

But, the Lord is beneficial and would not want us to indulge in such promiscuous activities. Heed the Lord!

It's wrong on so many levels. We should all be ashamed.

Truly, stop!

Uhm...
Sex is fun, not a sterile fertilization ritual. :roll:
Deny natural fun all you like, it's just self-alienating. — jorndoe

Sex, serves the purpose of procreation. Why are we exploiting that purpose to our amusement?

It's wrong!

@Buxtebuddha, where arth thou?

If masturbation is immoral, then I don't know what casual sex would be...

*Shudder*

I think I am a dissolutionist about this problem. To pose the problem is already to have distinguished properties of knowledge that make it different, and thus to already have both a sample and some criteria and a method. — unenlightened

Then, taking a step back, what does 'properties of knowledge' entail or mean to you? I feel as though we're setting the horse behind the cart here.

To deny it is to deny knowing what the problem is that one is posing. It is to talk of 'knowledge' whilst denying that there is knowledge. That's nonsense. — unenlightened

Again, we don't first arrive at knowledge without having some method or criteria for considering first as knowledge. So, maybe those have to be addressed first before we can talk about particulars instead of method. But, again, we're stuck in a loop again.

I think I know where you're going with this. You mean to highlight how do names attain/obtain their meaning? Kripke might have the answer to this question, if anyone here is knowledgeable enough on Kripke... I ain't unfortunately.

Both are two sides of the same coin and only together can we make a purchase. — TheMadFool

Hmm, unsure about that. I think both cannot be spoken without the other. Kind of like dialectics?

So, science is a method, hence; the scientific method...

Can you name any particular stances?

And, is the method approach winning against the particularistic one?

Hmmm... So, to win you have to have each complementing the other?

What I'm saying is there's a plethora of ''particulars'' in favor of the logical method. — TheMadFool

How so?

Said differently, logic works as the method to prove the truth of propositions. — TheMadFool

Yes, but knowledge and truth aren't the same. So no cigar, yet...

Hmm, a trialing thread it is then...?

Oh, ok.