Should there be a licence to have children? Short answer: yes. Will such a legislation ever be established in a nontotalitarian regime? No. — Janus

:up:

What personal characteristics would you look for in approving or disapproving parenthood? — BC

Economic status and possibility of access to employment, not dependent upon drugs or alcohol, the no existence of domestic violence, the eventual parents want to create a family in the future, and they are not just 'crushes', they do not have debts, etc. Well, everything you need to be able to adopt.

Do you think you are a competent prospective (or actual) parent? Why? — BC

No. If I not capable of taking care of myself, I can't parent a kid then. I think this is quite obvious, but for some folks not.

But hasn't it been failing off and on for like 800 years? — frank

:up:

Russia is invincible and will never fall out.

Cheers. I wish I could keep arguing and debating with you on this pretty interesting thread, but my knowledge of this topic is limited, and I am just a wannabe philosopher. I personally think that other members are more capable of answering your questions, or at least post more suitable answers. I think the website of Kelley Ross is good for learning, but it is true that it has complex paragraphs to understand. The link I posted below comes from an essay that has never been published, sadly. I don't understand why because it seems so interesting what Kelley Ross post there, and didactic with examples and explanation.

Would this be the right interpretation for Kant? — Corvus

Regrading this question, Kelley Ross states: The question then is why the thing in itself remains in the theory. To subsequent generations it has seemed that Kant ends up with a precarious, paradoxical, and perhaps even incoherent dualism between things in themselves and the phenomenal objects produced by synthesis. The thought here, however, is that Kant was right to retain his dualism. It is one indication of how delicate is Kant's balancing act in the equation of "transcendental idealism" and "empirical realism" that it is the "realism" of the latter that even those sympathetic with Kant have trouble taking seriously.

My answer to that question was, when I am not perceiving the world, there is no reason that I can believe in the existence of the world. I may still believe in the existence of the world without perceiving it, but the ground for my belief in the existence is much compromised in accuracy and certainty due to lack of the warrant for the belief. — Corvus

Corvus, I want to share with you some notes from Kelley Ross, when he finished his dissertation. My aim is not to force you to believe on the existence of the world, but to see another prospective in its prism. Ontological Undecidability

Ross states:

A thing in itself is in fact the object = x which stands outside of our knowledge, over and against our representations, and which in some way we suppose corresponds to the knowledge that we have of it. That would be the straightforward Cartesian view of things. In Kant's theory, however, all those functions of an "object" have been taken over by the object-forming functions of synthesis, and Kant's own awareness of this is evident enough in his conclusion that things in themselves are not known by us and so do not, in any familiar fashion, correspond to our representations after all.

He continues:

It is essential, therefore, that just how "realism" and "phenomenalism" are going to be distinguished from each other be pinpointed, both in Kant and in the larger picture of knowledge. Let me do this now by saying that the defining criterion for the difference, and the origin and essential feature of the whole matter, is as a question of existence: that we are all distinct, separate, and independent in existence from the things (except the body) that we know through perception. They can exist when we don't; and we can exist when they don't; and our veridical perceptions are supposed to represent them.

But he admitted:

The difficulty of phenomenalism, where "the representation alone must make the object possible," is that this feature of existence is easily lost. Indeed, if what phenomenalism means is that the reality of an object is exhausted by its features in the representation of a subject, then it is hard to see how this differs from solipsism or subjective idealism

But, if we are not directly acquainted with the real objects of experience, and they exist, then the real objects of experience are separate from us.

There's no doubt that the meaning of "cricket" is being extended but I don't think it is being transformed in quite the way that a metaphorical use would extend it. "Cricket" is defined as a noun and we understand how it is constituted. But "cricket" in Austin's example is being used as an adjective, in a different category. This change, or stretching, is different from a metaphorical use. — Ludwig V

Honestly, I think Austin is not using 'cricket' as an adjective, but a prefix. According to him, this noun is 'always-the-same' meaning. If someone did not know the significance of 'cricket', he/she couldn't match it with other words such as 'ball', 'bat', 'pavilion', etc. This is why he states that the person might gaze at those words trying to find out a common factor.
...
The factor here is the prefix cricket.

It is similar to a metaphorical use. This is why Donald Davidson states: Thus, when Melville writes that "Christ was a chronometer," the effect of metaphor is produced by our taking "chronometer" first in its ordinary sense and then in some extraordinary or metaphorical sense.

'Christ' is always-the-same meaning, while chronometer is a word whose significance can vary. It can work as a noun or in a metaphorical sense.

Yeah, those are good solutions to my cursed walls of popcorn ceiling. I tried everything, but the pictures or pins ended up falling down, anyway. Although adhesive or sticky putty may be the best solutions, I think the weather in my city is inconvenient as well. I have never tried velcro... now that you have mentioned, it could be a good solution. By the way, I have to focus on colouring these damn walls, because when a room is a painting 'process' everything turns into a mess full of disorder and dust.

He was certainly influenced by Wittgenstein; I'm not sure how much Austin was present in his thinking, although the separation of literal and pragmatic meaning can be traced to How to do things with words. — Banno

I promise I had similar thinking after reading the paper, but I wasn't confident enough to express that the work of Davidson was influenced - or reminds me of - Wittgenstein, so I am happy to know that you have the same thought. Yet I mentioned Austin because it is the principal subject of this thread, but it is true that 'literal and pragmatic' belong to 'How to do things with words'. Well, fair enough with that interesting paper you shared previously, I don't want to get off-topic and disturb your - and the rest of the folks - analysis on 'Sense and Sensibilia'.

Are you studying pathology? — Vera Mont

No, I am a lawyer, and I am eventually studying to become a land registrar. I studied law at university between 2015 - 2019. :smile:

You kind of reminded me to give more play to sunsets in the novel I've just started. — Vera Mont

I hope this basic and little thread gives you some inspiration for your novels or writings - if you are considering writing a new one! -

this one takes place in the north-west of England - lots of hills and water, and no city lights. I wish I could go there to see what the light is actually like, but will have to settle for pictures. Don't we just love Google? — Vera Mont

I agree! Google Maps and Images are one of the best inventions ever. Thanks to these, I am able to see Japanese landscapes which I will never see in real life, probably...

t's a good read, showing that understanding a metaphor involves understanding its literal meaning. — Banno

It is a good reading. Thank you for sharing the paper.

A metaphor makes us attend to some likeness, often a novel or surprising likeness, between two or more things. This trite and true observation leads, or seems to lead, to a conclusion concerning the meaning of metaphors. Consider ordinary likeness or similarity: two roses are similar because they share the property of being a rose; two infants are similar by virtue of their infanthood. Or, more simply, roses are similar because each is a rose, infants, because each is an infant

.

Perhaps, then, we can explain metaphor as a kind of ambiguity: in the context of a metaphor, certain words have either a new or an original meaning, and the force of the metaphor depends on our uncertainty as we waver between the two meanings. Thus when Melville writes that "Christ was a chronometer," the effect of metaphor is produced by our taking "chronometer" first in its ordinary sense and then in some extraordinary or metaphorical sense.

This reminds me of Austin's arguments on chapter VII, when he states: Consider the expressions 'cricket ball', 'cricket bat', 'cricket pavilion', 'cricket weather'. If someone did not know about cricket and were obsessed with the use of such 'normal' words as 'yellow', he might gaze at the ball, the bat, the building, the weather, trying to detect the 'common quality' which (he assumes) is attributed to these things by the prefix 'cricket'. But no such quality meets his eye; and so perhaps he concludes that 'cricket' must designate a non-natural quality, a quality to be detected not in any ordinary way but by intuition.

I cannot always leave the building in time so that I am there to witness the explosion. It's a grand show, no tickets needed. — L'éléphant

Not surprising, then, they figure so largely in painting and literature. — Vera Mont

I am happy to share my admiration of sunset with you, mates. I knew there would be members who would appreciate this gift from nature. I had to go to a mortuary yesterday. It is far from the centre of Madrid, and it is located in a zone where you can see all the sky, no buildings interrupt. The mortuary started at 16:00, and I left around 18:05, when the sky started to become a blurred orange and purple colour. I regret not taking a photo...

The podcast 'philosophize this' by Stephen West is very interesting. — Double H

Yeah, good stuff.

I also enjoyed this one: History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps.

The art of this Turkish woman gives me a relaxed, sweet mood.

:up: :grin:

I just recalled another website that I suggest you whole-heartily. The Proceedings of the Friesian School

The owner and administrator of this website is Kelley Ross. He is a PhD in philosophy, and his page is so vast regarding philosophical content and reviews. I have been visiting this site for years and I haven't finished yet! I think it will help you as well. Furthermore, Kelley Ross is a good folk. If you write him an email with questions, he replies.

That would save time, effort, money and a possible health risk, depending on the age of the building. — Vera Mont

:up:

Anything before 1977-80 is likely to contain asbestos. — Vera Mont

The building is 30 years old. The construction started in 1993 and ended in 1994. I was born here, and I wish I can keep living here. There are a lot of memories, and if one day I leave and live in another city, I will suffer from nostalgia.

Of course you could go deep burnt orange for the wall colour and that would be reminiscent of sunset. — Vera Mont

Good idea, I will keep it in mind. But, before starting to buy paint, I have to remove all the 'popcorn ceiling', and the mess this causes, as we debated with @Nils Loc. So, I started to think of a better idea: keep the 'acoustic ceiling' and painting it with an intense orange colour.

I don't take kindly to your mocking insult. — Massimo

He always insults and disrespects other users who don't think like him. Trust me when I say that he will destroy your energy and waste your time as well. My advice is to ignore him. Something difficult because he is always around posting hate and vacuous messages. What I don't understand is why moderators keep him here...

Massimo, you have posted very interesting comments here, and I wish you a good experience here. Welcome. :smile:

@Vera Mont

Update on the change and decoration of my bedroom.

I finally got the new curtains. My mother helped me in the process of finding them, and it turns out that the colours are different from what we thought in the first place. We made a big effort to find blue or dark blue curtains, but I didn't like the ones that I saw. Then, my mother and I saw a beautiful pair of green apple curtains. I must admit that I wasn't very satisfied with the colour of the curtains, but they have what I was looking for: They are transparent, and the sunlight rays are reflected. So, a good choice. I took a picture. I hope they can be well seen in the photo.

Rhymes and Legends, Bécquer

but I smile whenever an explosion of crimson/salmon color so low that it's literally a backdrop of an otherwise plain road and buildings stops me in the middle of the road. — L'éléphant

Exactly! You described it perfectly, and better than me. Your text is very poetic. I wanted to share a similar feeling this week in this thread, but I forgot it. When I get out of the building I work and study in, it is around 17:30 pm or even 18:00. The sun is in the last moments of the day, and it reflects coloured ochre rays in the windows of the building. It gives me a sweet feeling of melancholia.

On the other hand, there is also a good view at the parks. The sunlight rays make shadows on the silhouette of the trees. Ah, very poetic and artistic.

I feel similiar. I'd never think of myself as a 'philosopher'; rather, at most, a lifelong freethinker. — 180 Proof

Exactly. I usually feel shy to dive in on some threads, but then I say to myself: Hey, why don't be a wannabe thinker for an hour? :smirk:

The link provided by @Vera Mont is absolutely awesome, and there are pictures that I never seen until today. What a good discovery! Thanks, Vera. I randomly searched for a picture and I chose the following, because it was the one which impressed me the most.

December 17, 1999. The Hydra A galaxy cluster is really big. In fact, such clusters of galaxies are the largest gravitationally bound objects in the Universe. But individual galaxies are too cool to be recorded in this false-color Chandra Observatory X-ray image which shows only the 40 million degree gas that permeates the Hydra A cluster.

Wow! It is a gorgeous photo, that mallow colour is perfect and stunning. It is amazing how nature shares its privilege of being beautiful with us.

as a successful nihilist in search for something more, to overcome, to become, to learn to guarantee myself as a future. — Vaskane

Do you consider yourself a nihilist then? I have always wondered how a nihilist can wake up and get out of bed every morning. When I embraced nihilism for the first time, I remember that I was living in a critical period of my life. Well, at least that's how I experienced it, and nihilism is something to be understood individually.

Problem Solving. I'm interested in deep diving into problems and help overcome them. — Vaskane

Good luck. There are many problems which can't be solved, so don't get frustrated with this.

As a metaphysician you should be careful of your tables of opposite values, they prime within you responses that trigger without thinking — Vaskane

I wish I were a real metaphysician, mate. But I don't even understand most of the concepts and definitions. Rather than being a philosopher myself, I am just an observer of all the prism of philosophy.

The forum is definitely a lil intimidating — dani

Understandable. There are some folks who are always interested in metaphysics and others - like me - who shares food and trivialities at The Shoutbox. If I were you, I would feel intimidated too.

And @Vaskane who is an obsessed and compulsive lover of Nietzsche.

What's your ideal trajectory for learning about philosophy? — dani

Hello Dani, welcome to TPF. Nice to meet you.

It is important to read books and essays, but even more to share your thoughts and doubts with us on the forum. I think the best way to keep learning is when you exchange your views with others. Philosophy is a vast and complex field, and it is very difficult to learn by ourselves.

Enjoy your stay around here! :up:

This is true, but it is also true that we don't need language in order to understand the act of cutting. Think beavers, for example, or leaf-cutter ants. — Janus

Yes, that's true. We can understand the act of 'cutting' by mimicking it with gestures too, for instance. If I am not wrong, I think Austin argues about this in other books. How to do things with words, I guess.

The problem then arises with the philosophical division between words and things. That's the bit that creates unnecessary problems. — Ludwig V

Yes.

As I previously said in this long thread: Philosophers... always finding problems where there are none. :wink:

But words are also part of the world and words are also things in the world. The distinction between the two may have uses for certain purposes, but if misapplied, just generates false puzzles. — Ludwig V

I agree. Very well explained, Ludwig. I also think that Austin wants to argue about this in some paragraphs. Especially, when he explains the extension of the application and uses on words such as 'real' and 'good'.

Can you change the tree with words? Ordering it cut down will certainly change it. — Banno

You can't cut down a tree, or influence it in any way, with words. You can of course influence other language users with words, you can induce them to cut down the tree. So, it is of course true that we are influenced by our own words and the words of others, that is we are influenced by our understandings of the meanings of those words, and not by the words themselves as mere physical phemomena, whether they come in the form of visual symbols or sounds. — Janus

The point, way back, is that we do things with our utterances. — Banno

In the sense that we may act on other people (and some animals) with our utterances, such as to cause, or at least influence, them to do things, I agree. — Janus

Interesting exchanges, both of you.

It reminds me of Austin's arguments in chapter VII, the one that I tried to summarise last week. It is obvious that we cannot cut a tree with just words, but we can't cut it if we don't understand the act of 'cutting' either.

This is why some words - according to Austin - are considered as 'dimension words', the ones which tend to be more suitable for the needs and demands of people. For example: Banno could have said to me: 'Rip out the leaves of the tree'. I would probably not understand him, so I would not be able to do this action.

But, using dimension words such as 'cut' - or 'good' or the controversial 'real' - my basic knowledge would influence me to do what Banno is asking for.

Then, they depend on each other. Linguistic understanding and metaphysical possibility.

I have had my fair share of time studying some Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky — T4YLOR

Important authors to keep up with. I would recommend you to add Kazantzakis to your list.

I'm using all this as an excuse to write about trees I like...

My favourite kind of tree is the pine. It's partly to do with the beautiful coastal pine forests of the Mediterranean, which I experienced at about ten years old on holiday in Catalonia and never forgot. — Jamal

Pines are beautiful trees too, and I understand your reference to Mediterranean forests. When I was a kid, I used to go to Guardamar on holidays and there was a big fine forest. It has passed ten years since the last time I went to Guardamar, and I only hope that the pine forest is still conserved as much as I remember.

More recently, I had a couple of big sprawling pine trees in my garden in Spain, which harboured a small ecosystem of beasts and birds. — Jamal

:up:

I don't have a garden specifically, because I live in the average building with flats, but in the yard we have willows. They get very beautiful in autumn. Surprisingly, we have one palm tree, and I don't understand why it can survive in the weather and environment of Madrid.

I think I'm more of a sunrise man :grin: — Jamal

Ha! I am the opposite. I love rainy, cloudy and dark days. I remember one day, I was in the pharmacy, and it was raining so heavily, and then I shouted: Madrid looks so poetic and beautiful in days like these!!! And the people observe like I were a crazy folk

Please don't assume mathematicians are like this in general. Among then you will find musicians and artists. We are not bean counters. :cool: — jgill

I agree. Sorry for being so generic, it is true that amongst mathematicians, there also some who like art, poetry, literature as much as science. Like you, jgill, for instance. The first thing that I thought about this girl was that she was a bit arrogant, but maybe she was just trying to explain the scientific reason for the sunset.

she's just very young and earnest and has not yet discovered that you can have both scientific rigour and aesthetic awareness. — Vera Mont

We were very young, indeed. This happened around 2015 and the students of our campus were in the first year of our careers, so we were between 18 and 19 years old. Maybe, she is a different woman after 8 years...

There is nothing that anyone can do to make an object that has four equal length sides and simultaneously has zero equal length sides. — PL Olcott

Yes, because there is simply nothing that a round square could be. I think this is the main point after all.

I think I understand you better now. I did brief research on the internet and I found this: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2105946 and this one too: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2970/can-something-be-actually-possible-yet-logically-impossible

Well, logically impossible means something that is self-contradictory. I understand clearly your example of the 'square circle'. This is logically impossible because the concepts of reality contradict each other. So, we can assume that a 'square circle' is both actually impossible and logically impossible.

Nonetheless, to bake a cake using only house bricks is something which is logically impossible but actually possible. Because depending on the concepts of my - or your - reality, that cake can eventually be cooked using only house bricks. Maybe it is an impossible task for you, but not for me. Agree?

​Everything in your argument is fine, until you put God's touch on everything. I think there is not a possibility for a square circle because it is logically contradictory, simple. And this contradiction comes from the way we see and understand the reality we live in. I think the 'creator' has nothing to do with these principles. If we ever had to put on God's shoulder the responsibility of being logical, some principles of theology would vanish. For example: Omnipresence. Does 'God is able to see everything and to act anywhere he chooses' sounds logical to you?

I agree, and thanks for sharing your story and your mother's on the named rural property in Ontario. I personally feel attached to two kinds of trees: elms. We have numerous of this species in Madrid and a few in a rural plot in Toledo. We feel that attached to this tree that even one of the name of my dogs with 'olmo' - Elm but in Spanish - who passed away in 2017 sadly, and we buried him near to elms. On the other hand, I also feel attached to cherry trees due to my passion for Japanese culture. We have some a few in a local park, but they are far from being as pretty as the ones which are in Tokyo. When I see a cherry tree flourishing, I understand why Japanese poets were inspired in their haikus. It is an exquisite tree. It looks even fragile to me, with those pink or white colours.

I want to define a task that is logically impossible. — PL Olcott

Ah, I see.

Most people don't know what logically impossible means. — PL Olcott

Myself included, I am not going to lie to you. What you explain and write in your threads is very interesting, but I admit that I don't usually understand what it really means.

I wanted to define a task that even God could not do. — PL Olcott

But your thread is called: 'Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement'.

According to this premise, why should we demand from 'God' to make a single geometric object that is entirely a square and, simultaneously, is entirely a circle on the same two-dimensional plane then?

Maybe you were suggesting that a deity could do the logically impossible, because 'God' tends to be beyond human understanding. But again, we are in a paradox, because we are accepting that it is invalid to require logically impossible tasks...

Your threads are always very knotty!

Larches are my favourite tree and they're magnificent in October. — Vera Mont

They are very beautiful tree. Its leaves turn into gold and ochre colours, creating an artistic overview.

Almost bare now. — Vera Mont

And then, yes, this is one of the main issues. When the trees start to get bare because winter is approaching... I don't mind when trees get bared and the leaves are on the floor. It gives another mood. I would say, melancholy.