Wittgenstein and the end of Philosophy

[Q-Source]

If I had to choose one philosopher that has contributed more to elevate the role of philosophy then I would have to choose Wittgenstein.

By rejecting the traditional conception that philosophy was supposed to provide answers to universal questions such as what is the nature of reality?, does God exist?, what is the self?, Wittgenstein opened a new perspective of what philosophy was meant to be. Philosophy is a tool used to disentangle language games when different areas of knowledge try to give a unique answer to the same problem.

As an example, it is pointless to attempt to use a metalanguage when discussing the nature of consciousness because there is not a metalanguage in the first place ;) . The only thing we have are different language games, so a neurologyst, a materialist and an idealist will apply their own language game to explain the same problem. Problems arise because all attempt to impose their own language game on the others and it is the role of philosophy to delimit the use of language.

My point is that it is probably that we will never find an answer that will satisfy everybody because the use of language is absolutely relevant, howeveer this shouldn't imply that different language games (to ours) are wrong. So it is absolutely useless to diminish the arguments of an immaterialist regarding consciousness or other issue because a materialist is using a complete different set of concepts.
Does this complicate our problems? :confused:

Q-S

[Keneke]

Philosophy is a tool used to disentangle language games when different areas of knowledge try to give a unique answer to the same problem.

So it is absolutely useless to diminish the arguments of an immaterialist regarding consciousness or other issue because a materialist is using a complete different set of concepts.

edit: It seems that Wittgenstein pines for a standard.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Keneke
edit: It seems that Wittgenstein pines for a standard.


Not in "Philosophical Investigations" he doesn't. WIttgenstein published two great works, one when he was in his early twenties and one after he was dead. In the Tractatus, which can be blamed for Logical Positivism, he pines for a standard. But the mature Wittgenstein knew that this approach was inherently flawed. There is no absolute standard. There are only different language games designed by different people for different purposes, and reality is not constructed in such a way as to limit the nature of the language games that can be usefully empoyed to describe it.

[Keneke]

I don't think the desire for a standard is immature at all, but perhaps the expectation that you will find one is.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


There are only different language games designed by different people for different purposes, and reality is not constructed in such a way as to limit the nature of the language games that can be usefully empoyed to describe it.

Wittgestein provided a wonderful explanation of why philosophical confusions arise, but in practice it seems impossible to delimit the language games.

On the other hand, I wonder if this has given some people the excuse to justify the validity of their arguments over others just because they think that other areas of knowledge lack proper definitions of terms and concepts.

Q

[ceptimus]

I just wanted to show off my current sig line in this thread.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Q-Source

On the other hand, I wonder if this has given some people the excuse to justify the validity of their arguments over others just because they think that other areas of knowledge lack proper definitions of terms and concepts.



We all have our blind spots. We all have a tendency to point to the splinters in the eyes of others, oblivious to the concrete railway sleeper embedded in our own.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Geoff said:
There are only different language games designed by different people for different purposes, and reality is not constructed in such a way as to limit the nature of the language games that can be usefully empoyed to describe it.
This is an excellent statement, although I would remove the word "usefully."

Anyone up for a language game of "Next Muddled Metaphysic"?

~~ Paul

[Keneke]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


We all have our blind spots. We all have a tendency to point to the splinters in the eyes of others, oblivious to the concrete railway sleeper embedded in our own.

I don't think that's a totally accurate description. The scientific community takes all these people of a like mind and tries to incorporate all of knowledge together. Even amongst the sciences, there are different "languages". However, almost every supernatural agency there is (religion, psychics, etc) is explainable through scientific study. A woo-woo's rejection of axiomatic knowledge does not equate to Wittgenstein's lament, but only shows that they ignore what they cannot understand.

By contrast, science will never stop growing and asking questions, even going so far and attempting to explain woo-woo's phenomenae in a way that they can understand. For example: Pareidola as an explanation for the Nun Bun.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Keneke

I don't think that's a totally accurate description. The scientific community takes all these people of a like mind and tries to incorporate all of knowledge together.


Not from the point of view of philosophy it doesn't. Science is limited by its own assumptions, which have been discussed at length at this site. These assumptions include the existence of external reality and the belief that reality behaves the same for everyone. These are required assumptions, because without them science cannot operate. But the moment scientists start confusing their assumptions with absolute truth then the railway sleeper in the eye becomes apparent. Science demands objectivity but human beings are stranded in a subjective realm. Because of this it CANNOT incorporate all knowledge together because some knowledge is neccesarily subjective. Wittgenstein understood this.


Even amongst the sciences, there are different "languages".


They share certain assumptions.


However, almost every supernatural agency there is (religion, psychics, etc) is explainable through scientific study.


Science cannot study anything which is purely subjective. Science cannot, for example, study art.


A woo-woo's rejection of axiomatic knowledge does not equate to Wittgenstein's lament, but only shows that they ignore what they cannot understand.


My point throughout this thread has been that everybody has a tendency to ignore what they do not understand. If you think that does not include scientists then you do not understand the limitations of science.


By contrast, science will never stop growing and asking questions...


There are some categories of question which science is inherently incapable of answering. An example : What does RED look like to you. Do you think science can answer this question? If you do, then you are ascribing to science the ability to answer necessarily subjective questions. This it CANNOT do.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Geoff said:
Science cannot study anything which is purely subjective. Science cannot, for example, study art.
Say what?

http://kenstange.com/drmiro/IAEA2000Paper.doc

http://www.colour-affects.co.uk/history.html

http://www.qmethod.org/News/august_18_2003.htm

http://www.music.upm.edu.my/MusTech/Yeoh.htm

Note that if something was "purely subjective," no two people could talk about it at all.

~~ Paul

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos


Note that if something was "purely subjective," no two people could talk about it at all.

~~ Paul


Even if Science studies subjectives areas of knowledge it does not mean that those areas will become objective. Scientists recognise their own limitations:


Music is too subjective in nature to have just one answer. In my opinion, there should be a balance on how far scientific approaches can go in music. Music is after all very much a personal choice and taste. It is a form of expression and although scientists may prove that a certain way of performing is aesthetically more beautiful, they should always bear in mind that every performer is different. http://www.music.upm.edu.my/MusTech/Yeoh.htm


This is just one example taken from your links.
There is no language in Science that will EVER explain why some people find some forms of expression more beautiful and enjoyable than others. These limitations in the use of language is what makes impossible for Science to ever provide a full objective description of what makes something aesthetically beautiful.

Q-S

[Peskanov]

Hello Geoff, nice to see you again here;


here are some categories of question which science is inherently incapable of answering. An example : What does RED look like to you. Do you think science can answer this question?


IMO the problem is not of science, but of language. When you ask this, one can only reply using words; but you don't want a description about seeing red.
In other words, you are not requesting a rationale, but requesting a transference of experience instead!
No human language can answer this request, no matter scientific, philosphic or religious.

Let's guess science can isolate the brain signals that constitute seeing red, so you can experience it using the proper mechanism.
This transference of information from one system to another would serve this request, and it can be argued that it would be done in a language (the machine's one), but certainly not in a human one.

[UndercoverElephant]

Belem,

Exactly.

There has been a tendency within some areas, notably extremist scientific skepticism, to take one half of Wittgensteins philosophy (his rejection of metaphysics) and ignore the other half (his dictate that every form of knowledge is restricted and "made relative" by the limitations of its own language game). In other words some people seek/claim to reject metaphysics, yet at the same time they attempt to elevate science to the point where it is the arbiter of absolute truth. Wittgenstein would have considered this inconsistent. The "language game" of science is just as much a "language game" as any other, and it is not immune to the problems inherent in all the others. If you try to elevate science to "arbiter of objective truth" then you are making implied metaphysical claims of precisely the sort Wittgenstein was trying to avoid. If you are going to reject metaphysics then to be consistent you must reject ALL metaphysics, not just the metaphysics you do not happen to like.

The claim that science could somehow provide "objective" knowledge about something as obviously subjective as the appreciation of music rather nicely demonstrates the problem I am talking about.

Geoff.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Peskanov
[B]Hello Geoff, nice to see you again here;

IMO the problem is not of science, but of language. When you ask this, one can only reply using words; but you don't want a description about seeing red.
In other words, you are not requesting a rationale, but requesting a transference of experience instead!
No human language can answer this request, no matter scientific, philosphic or religious.


Hi Peskanov. Yes I am in total agreement with this. All human language games are limited and no human language game can accomplish a transference of direct subjective experience.


Let's guess science can isolate the brain signals that constitute seeing red, so you can experience it using the proper mechanism.
This transference of information from one system to another would serve this request, and it can be argued that it would be done in a language (the machine's one), but certainly not in a human one.

Even if you could replicate the brain signals, you still cannot be sure that the associated subjective experience is identical in all persons.

Geoff.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
[B]In other words some people seek/claim to reject metaphysics, yet at the same time they attempt to elevate science to the point where it is the arbiter of absolute truth.

Yes, this happens. But it usually happens not among scientists but materialists. Just like the above example.


If you try to elevate science to "arbiter of objective truth" then you are making implied metaphysical claims of precisely the sort Wittgenstein was trying to avoid. If you are going to reject metaphysics then to be consistent you must reject ALL metaphysics, not just the metaphysics you do not happen to like.

This goes in the other way as well. If there are not ultimate truths because there is no a metalanguage that can reconcile all interpretations, then there cannot be an absolute truth about the nature of reality. I doubt that people are willing to reject all metaphysics when trying to interpret what they see around.

I might be wrong but the problem arises because scientific claims are usually valid independently of your metaphysical frame of reference. Everything else is subject to how TLOP work.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Q-Source

Yes, this happens. But it usually happens not among scientists but materialists. Just like the above example.


"We reject metaphysics! Except materialism, because that isn't metaphysics!"

:hit:


This goes in the other way as well. If there are not ultimate truths because there is no a metalanguage that can reconcile all interpretations, then there cannot be an absolute truth about the nature of reality. I doubt that people are willing to reject all metaphysics when trying to interpret what they see around.


Well they should either reject ALL metaphysics, OR they should be prepared to defend their own metaphysics, OR they should leave philosophy to philosophers.


I might be wrong but the problem arises because scientific claims are usually valid independently of your metaphysical frame of reference. Everything else is subject to how TLOP work. [/B]

Not sure I follow this. Scientific claims are valid within their own frame of reference. They are not valid as absolute truths. The meaning of your last sentence about TLOP escapes me.

[Keneke]

Back from the warm weekend! Sorry for the slow reply.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Not from the point of view of philosophy it doesn't. Science is limited by its own assumptions, which have been discussed at length at this site. These assumptions include the existence of external reality and the belief that reality behaves the same for everyone.

Yet science's assumptions are among the smallest of any "language". It is the most believable thing out there. (Why am I always coming back to this point in every thread? Leap the gap, leap the gap, I'm like a broken record. I'm beginning to get in a rut.)

But the moment scientists start confusing their assumptions with absolute truth then the railway sleeper in the eye becomes apparent.

The basis of science requires that it adds new "words" to the "language" as our world expands. Even subjectivity is studied in psychology. True, IF scientists turn theory into law, then it can be restrictive, but science is more fluid than just about any legitimate "language". Note the amount of knowledge we have learned in the past 100 years: through science, our intellectual base of knowledge grows exponentially, because it is willing to take what it learns and add it in. It's kind of like Christians adopting Yule, except without calling it Christmas.

Because of this it CANNOT incorporate all knowledge together because some knowledge is neccesarily subjective.

Like what?

Science cannot study anything which is purely subjective. Science cannot, for example, study art.

I believe Paul has already addressed this.

My point throughout this thread has been that everybody has a tendency to ignore what they do not understand.

What does science ignore? Its assumptions are always at hand, ready to be overthrown at a moment's notice (moment = time for paradigm shift to take place)

There is no language in Science that will EVER explain why some people find some forms of expression more beautiful and enjoyable than others.

The claim that science could somehow provide "objective" knowledge about something as obviously subjective as the appreciation of music rather nicely demonstrates the problem I am talking about.

Firing synapses. Dopamine levels and its effect on brain function. Language and behavior based on these changes. It's not something science knows completely about, but we have the groundwork, and may come to completely understand it in time. You are assuming that because it is unknown, it is unknowable.

If you try to elevate science to "arbiter of objective truth" then you are making implied metaphysical claims of precisely the sort Wittgenstein was trying to avoid.

There's a small, but important difference between making science "arbiter of objective truth" and using science as arbiter because it's the best guess we have. Like I said before, ANY assumption science makes can be changed. If something comes along that is more "true", science adopts it.

All human language games are limited and no human language game can accomplish a transference of direct subjective experience.

Another assumption which I cannot totally agree with. This Wittgenstein position is laced with "always" and "never" statements, which immediately lead it to suspicion.

Even if you could replicate the brain signals, you still cannot be sure that the associated subjective experience is identical in all persons.

How do you know? I've already explained what I think science could do, given the computing skill; based upon previous advances in science, it seems quite likely. Perhaps differences in people's reactions to art is mapped out. Perhaps these differences in brain activity are mapped out and discovered why they are different. Maybe this entire subject will be in a textbook in 50 years. Are you saying this is impossible? I'm not saying it is 100% probable, but it is possible.

Yes, this happens. But it usually happens not among scientists but materialists.

Yes, I think this may the problem. People are taking the worldview created by scientists and offering it as immutable law. It's the best guess we have, though. I am materialistic, to be sure, but it is science (with a healthy dose of skepticism) that is the real Holy Grail here.

Your average Joe is going to cling to whatever paradigm the lords of the earth give them. It's fairly easy to counter any set view of the world, because we don't have the answers yet. But to say that the answers are forever unknowable...that's a mighty big assumption.

[UndercoverElephant]

Hello Keneke

I'll start at the end of your post.


Your average Joe is going to cling to whatever paradigm the lords of the earth give them.


Well, this isn't "average Joe" territory we are discussing. This is a thread about Wittgenstein and the end of philosophy.


It's fairly easy to counter any set view of the world, because we don't have the answers yet. But to say that the answers are forever unknowable...that's a mighty big assumption.


I think Wittgenstein was in the business of avoiding assumptions. Specifically he was concerned about avoiding assumptions we do not even realise we have made because those assumptions are not explicit but built in to the language we choose to use.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
Not from the point of view of philosophy it doesn't. Science is limited by its own assumptions, which have been discussed at length at this site. These assumptions include the existence of external reality and the belief that reality behaves the same for everyone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet science's assumptions are among the smallest of any "language". It is the most believable thing out there.


That is in itself a very personalised way of looking at things. The problem is that you have chosen to place very little significance on those things which science assumes. You believe they are safe and reasonable assumptions which are of no major significance. Many people might well agree with you. But many others may point at these assumptions made by science and see them as major obstacles to a proper understanding of the nature of reality - and those people would have a perfect right to make those claims. An idealist might very well argue that the primacy of conciousness is the most believable thing out there. You wouldn't agree. We all have a tendency to believe our own assumptions are "the right ones" and other peoples are "the wrong ones". Wittgensteins position is that ALL the different languages have their own place and their own relevance, and from the point of view of philosophy his view on this is not really open to being challenged. That was the point of this thread. After Wittgenstein, philosophy has been reduced to an analysis of language.


The basis of science requires that it adds new "words" to the "language" as our world expands. Even subjectivity is studied in psychology. True, IF scientists turn theory into law, then it can be restrictive, but science is more fluid than just about any legitimate "language". Note the amount of knowledge we have learned in the past 100 years: through science, our intellectual base of knowledge grows exponentially, because it is willing to take what it learns and add it in.


This is all true. It is also irrelevant because it matters not how many new theories and new words science invents, they are all still part of the same materialistic language game of science - the language game remains the same language game with the same limitations and assumptions. The fact that it is an evolving language rather than a static one does not change the basic limitations.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of this it CANNOT incorporate all knowledge together because some knowledge is neccesarily subjective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like what?


Like what red looks like to me, to take the textbook example.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science cannot study anything which is purely subjective. Science cannot, for example, study art.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe Paul has already addressed this.


I'd prefer if you answered yourself. I'm not sure Paul has addressed this at all.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point throughout this thread has been that everybody has a tendency to ignore what they do not understand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does science ignore? Its assumptions are always at hand, ready to be overthrown at a moment's notice (moment = time for paradigm shift to take place)


Science ignores anything it can't define according to its own lagnuage system. The textbook example, again, is qualia. Science cannot meaningfully define qualia - within the materialistic language game science is dependent upon there is simply no place for things which are, by definition, immaterial. This has led some people to claim that the word "qualia" is itself meaningless. But this isn't actually true. Within many other sorts of language games - other ways of interpreting the world - the word "qualia" has a very clear and distinct meaning and the people who use it have not the slightest difficulty in establishing what it means and how to use it. It is simply not possible to "overthrow" the current scientific paradigm and replace it with another one where the word "qualia" is actually useful, because in order for "qualia" to mean something the assumptions required for science to operate must be altered. Thus science has limitations, thus science is forced to ignore certain things and thus no scientific paradigm shift can fix the problem. All of which translates into : science is not the absolute arbiter of truth, and neither is anything else.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The claim that science could somehow provide "objective" knowledge about something as obviously subjective as the appreciation of music rather nicely demonstrates the problem I am talking about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Firing synapses.......


I don't understand why you can't see the problem. I claimed that science cannot meaningfully discuss the subjective appreciation of music. In an attempt to demonstrate I am wrong you have responded with "firing synapses". "firing synapses" is a phrase belonging to the language game of physics. But if you think that it tells anyone anything at all about the subjective appreciation of music, then your own life must be a musical wasteland. Discussing the subjective appreciation of music can only be done using emotive metaphors like "The climax of Beethovens symphony thundered over me like an enormous pacific wave crashing over my head.....". "Firing synapses" is just innappropriate and meaningless outside of physics and materialistic biology.


Dopamine levels and its effect on brain function. Language and behavior based on these changes. It's not something science knows completely about, but we have the groundwork, and may come to completely understand it in time.


Science doesn't know about it at all. It does not "have the groundwork". It has it's own groundwork which is very useful indeed within the realm which it is designed for, but absolutely useless within the realm you are trying to discuss.


You are assuming that because it is unknown, it is unknowable.


I am not "assuming" anything. Wittgensteins theories of language are not based upon assumptions. How could they be? Their whole point is to expose the assumptions inherent elsewhere!


There's a small, but important difference between making science "arbiter of objective truth" and using science as arbiter because it's the best guess we have. Like I said before, ANY assumption science makes can be changed. If something comes along that is more "true", science adopts it.


No, this is wrong. It does not matter how much you may choose to believe in the non-existance of a mind-independent reality, science cannot and must not adopt this assumption. If it did adopt this assumption then it would stop being science, and that doesn't actually serve the best interests of anybody.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All human language games are limited and no human language game can accomplish a transference of direct subjective experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another assumption which I cannot totally agree with. This Wittgenstein position is laced with "always" and "never" statements, which immediately lead it to suspicion.


You mean like your own previous statement that "Like I said before, ANY assumption science makes can be changed."

ANY assumption?

I think not.


How do you know? I've already explained what I think science could do, given the computing skill; based upon previous advances in science, it seems quite likely. Perhaps differences in people's reactions to art is mapped out. Perhaps these differences in brain activity.......


Can't you see that you are trapped right now by the language game you are trying to use? You are trying to make a case that science can deal with internal, subjective things like the appreciation of art, but your strategy for doing so is to claim that at some point in future there can be a materialistic way to discuss these things. You are trying to claim that "everything which exists" or "everything which can be discussed" can be reduced to physics. Wittgensteins contribution to philosophy included a clear warning that this sort of "language game confusion" does nothing but lead people astray.


.....are mapped out and discovered why they are different. Maybe this entire subject will be in a textbook in 50 years. Are you saying this is impossible? I'm not saying it is 100% probable, but it is possible.


I'm saying it is impossible. It doesn't matter if you travel to the year 3004. There will still be no way to incorporate the word "qualia" into the language game of physics. You can argue that there are no such thing as qualia if you like, as Dennett does, but you cannot argue that qualia are material things, because this is linguistically illogical.

"There is nothing left for philosophy to do but the analysis of language."

Ludwig Wittgenstein.


I am materialistic, to be sure, but it is science (with a healthy dose of skepticism) that is the real Holy Grail here.



Argghh! :D

You have actually said it! The one thing I am trying to discourage above all others is the elevation of science to the status of a pseudo-religion, and here you are describing science as "the holy grail". Personally, I have no "Holy Grail". Why do you want one? There is no Holy Grail. None.

Geoff.

[Keneke]

Sigh. You have not convinced me one iota (and I assume vice versa), and are starting to repeat yourself, as am I. But, I suppose for the sake of discussion, I will continue...

I think Wittgenstein was in the business of avoiding assumptions.

...except for his biggest assumption that there is no reconciliation between "languages", nor can one language adequately express another. We English-speaking folks might have to write a book about "that certain something", while the French say, "Je ne sais quoit", but the meaning is the same. The French are merely more efficient in that regard. ('bout the only thing they are efficient at...)

Specifically he was concerned about avoiding assumptions we do not even realise we have made because those assumptions are not explicit but built in to the language we choose to use.

And quite a noble cause that is. However, knowing those limitations is the first step to overcoming them. You assume they are impossible to overcome. Maybe 100 years of research can explain why you said, ""The climax of Beethovens symphony thundered over me like an enormous pacific wave crashing over my head.....", and is extremely unefficient and taxing, but the possibility is there. I am not saying that it certainly exists, but you seem to believe that it cannot exist.

You believe they are safe and reasonable assumptions which are of no major significance.
Yet even they can be overturned. What in science is immutable? You tell me, cause I certainly don't know.

An idealist might very well argue that the primacy of conciousness is the most believable thing out there. You wouldn't agree.
The paradigm might shift if a field of study, based upon the primacy of consciousness, were formed and it made more sense than science. Does it? Will it ever? Can't say. Please don't put words in my mouth; I said science is the best guess. If something better comes along, so be it. Or even the assumption that you must have only one framework! Does a mix of science and X work better for the world than science alone?

Wittgensteins position is that ALL the different languages have their own place and their own relevance, and from the point of view of philosophy his view on this is not really open to being challenged.

I suppose, but don't use this vague sentence to support your extended theories. Science has its place and relevance, and music appreciation has its place and relevance. This does NOT assume that the two "languages" are "untranslatable". I posit that they might be, in time. Not that they definitely are, but that it may be possible. You, however, are positing the absolute negative. I don't think we'll be able to fully answer that question in our lifetime.

the language game remains the same language game with the same limitations and assumptions.

The fact that there are limits is your assumption. It's easier to explain music in terms of feeling, and we cognize what the words mean when we say them. Incredibly more efficient. But like the French/English analogy mentioned before, not completely untranslatable.

The fact that it is an evolving language rather than a static one does not change the basic limitations.

Limitations /= impossiblities.

All of which translates into : science is not the absolute arbiter of truth, and neither is anything else.
Did I say it was?

I don't understand why you can't see the problem.

I see it fine. There are things science can't explain, and Wittgenstein posits that they can NEVER be explained by any one language. Is that a fair derivation of his theory?

But if you think that it tells anyone anything at all about the subjective appreciation of music, then your own life must be a musical wasteland.

That was merely a starting point of describing how music affects the brain. I don't have time to educate you. Go Google studies on the subject if you need help.

And for the record, I was a professional musician. Music is in my soul. However, I believe it may be possible to write a dissertation about how it affects me, using scientific language to explain every nuance of the feeling inside of me. You say that it is not possible. Note that I am not saying it absolutely is possible. I tend to avoid absolute statements.

"Firing synapses" is just innappropriate and meaningless outside of physics and materialistic biology.

I agree with the inappropriate statement. This doesn't strengthen your point though. The fact that we SHOULD have all these languages (for brevity's sake) does not mean that they are forever separated.

I am not "assuming" anything. Wittgensteins theories of language are not based upon assumptions. How could they be? Their whole point is to expose the assumptions inherent elsewhere!

Then, based on that theory, wouldn't even Wittgenstein's theory itself have unknown assumptions embedded in it? Like the fact that languages are not translatable.


No, this is wrong. It does not matter how much you may choose to believe in the non-existance of a mind-independent reality, science cannot and must not adopt this assumption. If it did adopt this assumption then it would stop being science, and that doesn't actually serve the best interests of anybody.

Are you saying that a mind-independent reality would never be adopted by science, even if it was proven?

You are trying to claim that "everything which exists" or "everything which can be discussed" can be reduced to physics.

Actually, "reduced" is not the word for it. It becomes incredibly complex to explain emotion through science. But it can be done. It's being done in your human brain right now: raw data is flooding from one portion of your brain to the next, causing your body to react. I can't see what a picture is by looking at the hexadecimal code of a JPG file, but I know that the lovely picture it creates is nothing but lines of code.

I'm saying it is impossible. It doesn't matter if you travel to the year 3004. There will still be no way to incorporate the word "qualia" into the language game of physics.

Physics is not the whole of science.

You have actually said it! The one thing I am trying to discourage above all others is the elevation of science to the status of a pseudo-religion, and here you are describing science as "the holy grail".

I'm sorry, does my analogy confuse you? Do you think that my terminology means I semi-worship science? Uh, no. Your whole post has cast me in the light of a science-worshipper of some sort. Do not confuse my stubborness for blind faith. I am fully aware of what Wittgenstein was trying to say. I understand the desire to use different languages. But when he says languages are not reconcilable, I say don't create a philosophical Babylon. I don't want true objectivity, as you seem to think I do. But I do favor one language over the others. It's not even my native language.

Personally, I have no "Holy Grail". Why do you want one? There is no Holy Grail. None.

I take this to mean there are no absolutes, right? And you say that "languages" are "absolutely" untranslatable?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Keneke

I suppose, but don't use this vague sentence to support your extended theories. Science has its place and relevance, and music appreciation has its place and relevance. This does NOT assume that the two "languages" are "untranslatable".

The attempt to "translate" one language game into the language game of science -which means to get a unique logical picture of reality- was the mistake Wittgenstein made in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Many years later he recognised such error and wrote the Philosophical Investigations, there he shows that there is no a unique logical language (apart from mathematics) that can give us a general description of reality.
Instead, we have different language games that are independent from each other. Confusions and philosophical problems arise when people try to explain -with a determine language game- concepts that belong to a different language.


I posit that they might be, in time. Not that they definitely are, but that it may be possible. You, however, are positing the absolute negative. I don't think we'll be able to fully answer that question in our lifetime.

This means you don't understand that there are limitations in the language of Science that have nothing to do with its inability/ability to study human beings. Mind is immaterial and science only deals with concepts related to the material-tangible world.
The role of philosophy is to clarify what kind of language people are using. The description of reality that you have makes sense to you, but it does not make sense to an idealist and viceversa.

Q-S

[UndercoverElephant]

Hello Keneke.

I will try to avoid pointless repetitions. I was once vehemently anti-Wittgenstein because I believed he had killed philosophy. Perhaps W. is an acquired taste, I don't know.


...except for his biggest assumption that there is no reconciliation between "languages", nor can one language adequately express another.....


I have no choice but to repeat the "qualia" example. There is no reconciliation possible here for a very simple reason :

1) Science can only operate within the assumption that only physical things exist.
2) Qualia are defined to be non-physical.

No advances in science can fix the clash between (1) and (2). If you want to "reconcile" these things you have to change the definition of one or the other. You either have to find a way for science to recognise the existence of non-physical things, or you have to change the definition of qualia so they are no longer non-physical. There are no other options, and both the above options are unnacceptable. So no "assumption" is involved because it is linguistically demonstrable and we are arguing about LANGUAGES. I just demonstrated it. I did not need to "assume" anything. All I needed to do was quote the definitions of the words. There can be no such thing as a "physical non-physical thing"!

Your example of English and French does not provide a solution to the above problem, because English and French are not "language games" at all. They are languages. Language-games exist as subsets of languages.


Yet even they can be overturned. What in science is immutable? You tell me, cause I certainly don't know.


I already told you. Science MUST assume external realism and naturalism. These things are not open for debate. If you lose the assumption that external reality behaves independently of the observation of it, or that it follows the same set of natural laws at all times, then it can no longer function as science! It would have become pseudo-science and presumably this is the very last thing anybody who cares about science would want to do to it! Some things in science are indeed "immutable".


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An idealist might very well argue that the primacy of conciousness is the most believable thing out there. You wouldn't agree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The paradigm might shift if a field of study, based upon the primacy of consciousness, were formed and it made more sense than science. Does it? Will it ever? Can't say.


What does "made more sense" mean?

Made more sense to who? And in what context? Anti-realism and Supernaturalism makes sense only to anti-realists and supernaturalists. It will never "make more sense" for science to adopt supernaturalism.


Please don't put words in my mouth; I said science is the best guess.


Your best guess. Or are you trying to impose it on everybody else?


Or even the assumption that you must have only one framework! Does a mix of science and X work better for the world than science alone?


I certainly never made any such assumption. Use as many frameworks as you like.

"There is nothing about the basic structure of reality that limits the number of language games that can usefully be employed to describe it."

(Richard Rorty)

It isn't me who is trying to restrict us to one framework only! People who are "scientistic" do this. Biblical literalists do this. I am a Post-Modernist for heavens sake! Use as many frameworks as you like, just don't mix them up arbitrarily and claim to be making any sense! :)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wittgensteins position is that ALL the different languages have their own place and their own relevance, and from the point of view of philosophy his view on this is not really open to being challenged.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose, but don't use this vague sentence to support your extended theories.


What extended theories? It's been a long time since I posted any theoretical metaphysics here, and when I did do so it was at a time when I had failed to understand the relevance of Wittgenstein. It would not do it now.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand why you can't see the problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see it fine. There are things science can't explain, and Wittgenstein posits that they can NEVER be explained by any one language. Is that a fair derivation of his theory?


Wittgenstein certainly warned against scientism. Q-Source has said in this thread that there is no such thing as a "one true meta-language". So yes, Wittgenstein would have said that there is no one language that can accurately encompass all of the others. Additionally it should be pointed out that since there is no way to think without language there is no way to stand outside of language and compare it to reality for the purposes of establishing that language corresponds to truth - thus there is no way to claim that anything described in language is "truth" - everything is linguistically relative.


That was merely a starting point of describing how music affects the brain. I don't have time to educate you. Go Google studies on the subject if you need help.


I did not ask you about "how music affects the brain." You are still stuck in the same innappropriate language-game, and now you have started with the ad-homs which is always a sign that somebody is running out of arguments. I do not need your "education" thankyou very much. If I want to learn about philosophy this is about the last place I would come.

I too am a musician, BTW, and a scientist.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this is wrong. It does not matter how much you may choose to believe in the non-existance of a mind-independent reality, science cannot and must not adopt this assumption. If it did adopt this assumption then it would stop being science, and that doesn't actually serve the best interests of anybody.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you saying that a mind-independent reality would never be adopted by science, even if it was proven?


I am saying that if somebody in philosophy proved that there was NO external (mind-independent) reality that science COULD NOT adopt this assumption any more than Christianity could adopt the assumption that God doesn't exist! Some things just do not belong together. Atheism doesn't belong in Christianity and anti-realism doesn't belong in science, however much Lifegazer wants it to.


I am fully aware of what Wittgenstein was trying to say. I understand the desire to use different languages. But when he says languages are not reconcilable, I say don't create a philosophical Babylon. I don't want true objectivity, as you seem to think I do. But I do favor one language over the others. It's not even my native language.


Fine. You are free to favour science. But you need to recognise where science can't go. The alternative is to allow idiots like Lifegazer to try to use philosophical proofs against the existence of an external reality, mixed with science, to create pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. I say again that this helps NOBODY. Not even Lifegazer, judging by his evident mental state.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I have no "Holy Grail". Why do you want one? There is no Holy Grail. None.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I take this to mean there are no absolutes, right? And you say that "languages" are "absolutely" untranslatable?


No one true metalanguage. No one true philosophy. No one true religion. No one best way of describing the world.

Geoff.

edit :

It occurs to me that you are trying to use my assertion that "There is no absolute truth" to counter with "Then it's not absolutely true that there is no absolute truth."

If so, my response is :

:rolleyes:

[Keneke]

And round and round we go. You're repeating, and so am I. I'll stop here, then. Good debate. ::Shakes your hand::

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Science MUST assume external realism and naturalism. These things are not open for debate.
These things aren't open to debate with you, perhaps. But there is no absolute truth in this statement.

It's a myth that science has to be conducted from the viewpoint of observing an external reality. Science is merely concerned with existential behaviour/order, as it looks within the fishbowl of perceived existence.
Science is shown to be the observation of internally perceived/sensed behaviour/order. This order - these laws between things - does exist, even within our own awareness!!
Science is the study of the order amongst the inner-sensations, even though you and science fail to recognise this.
No assumption of an external realm is required to do science!! The behaviour/order perceived within existence is still there to be examined, regardless.
Indeed, such an assumption is shown to be incorrect: science ponders the internal realm of the mind's perceived order.

I object to your asserted statement. And in the process, I probably do much harm to W's claims.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

These things aren't open to debate with you, perhaps. But there is no absolute truth in this statement.

It's a myth that science has to be conducted from the viewpoint of observing an external reality. Science is merely concerned with existential behaviour/order, as it looks within the fishbowl of perceived existence.
Science is shown to be the observation of internally perceived/sensed behaviour/order. This order - these laws between things - does exist, even within our own awareness!!
Science is the study of the order amongst the inner-sensations, even though you and science fail to recognise this.
No assumption of an external realm is required to do science!! The behaviour/order perceived within existence is still there to be examined, regardless.
Indeed, such an assumption is shown to be incorrect: science ponders the internal realm of the mind's perceived order.


I already presented an argument that within the framework of your philosophy, the reality that we perceive is external to our sense of awareness, making it external reality. Since you find it perfectly ok to cut and paste your arguments into unrelated discussions, why not:

It would apear that in your reality, god is compartmentalized into multiple senses of self. The primary god sense of self provides preceptions to its lifegazer sense of self. In this, you are viewing a world beyond your perceptions, are you not?

You already said that we are having the dream fed though us. The process you spoke of with the mind opening the blueprint to the page we are perceiving, and feeding us that perception. So even if our consciousness is part of the mind, our part of the consciousness and awareness is not generating the dream. So that would make it a reality external to our awareness.

You said all of reality is just inner-sensations, its all contained within our mind. If so, the lifegazer I see walking down the street is not really lifegazer, its just the zombie lifegazer. The real lifegazer is off with his own reality within his own inner-sensations. So whatever I do to the zombie lifegazer, within my own reality of inner-sensations, won't effect the actual lifegazer, just as it would in any other dream of mine.


I object to your asserted statement. And in the process, I probably do much harm to W's claims.

ya, right, your philosophy couldn't hurt a fly.

[slimshady2357]

originally posted by Geoff
I am saying that if somebody in philosophy proved that there was NO external (mind-independent) reality that science COULD NOT adopt this assumption any more than Christianity could adopt the assumption that God doesn't exist!Science MUST assume external realism and naturalism. These things are not open for debate.

You and Interesting Ian agree on a lot of things, I wonder if he would agree with those statements? From things he has said in the past, I doubt it.

Ian?

Adam

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
It would apear that in your reality, god is compartmentalized into multiple senses of self. The primary god sense of self provides preceptions to its lifegazer sense of self. In this, you are viewing a world beyond your perceptions, are you not?

By what sense can the mind be external to its sensations? This would say, also, that the sensations are external to the mind.
The mind is indivisible Russ. It exists and things (perceptions, even of identity) exist abstractly, within that mind.

You already said that we are having the dream fed though us. The process you spoke of with the mind opening the blueprint to the page we are perceiving, and feeding us that perception. So even if our consciousness is part of the mind, our part of the consciousness and awareness is not generating the dream. So that would make it a reality external to our awareness.

My philosophy reduces existence to 'God'. That's it. And everything internal to God - God's perceptions - are just abstract things.

You said all of reality is just inner-sensations, its all contained within our mind. If so, the lifegazer I see walking down the street is not really lifegazer, its just the zombie lifegazer. The real lifegazer is off

There is no real lifegazer. There is no real Russ. Just perceptions of you know who.

You've derailed the thread Russ. The post I made challenged this:-
1) Science can only operate within the assumption that only physical things exist.
2) Qualia are defined to be non-physical.

Actually, it challenged the first one. But upon second glance I see that the second one needs qualification too:-
Though qualia are indeed non-physical, they are the foundation of physical description (knowledge of things). Hence, qualia are actually defined to be physical, ironically (and incorrectly, of course), even though they are abstract/intangible experiences of the mind.

Science thinks it is objective because it understands existential order (to a large degree). But it will not concede to the fact that it (science) is the study of the mind's internal qualia... and the order thereof. Thus science is an internal practise - not dealing with any supposed external realm - and not needing one to function, either.

Science is in dire need of a revolution... and so is philosophy.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

These things aren't open to debate with you, perhaps. But their is no absolute truth in this statement.


No, Lifegazer. THESE THINGS ARE NOT OPEN TO DEBATE. PERIOD.

I realise that there is no hope whatsover that a person who knows absolutely bugger all about philosophy could understand Wittgenstein, but against my better judgement I will answer your post.


It's a myth that science has to be conducted from the viewpoint of observing an external reality. Science is merely concerned with existential behaviour/order, as it looks within the fishbowl of perceived existence.


Wrong as usual. If you drop the assumption of an shared, consistent EXTERNAL reality then you have no hope of ever being able to accurately replicate anybodies results about anything at all, because there is no shared OBJECT for you to study. You've got no guarantee that my reality behaves the same as yours does. Philosophy can deal with anti-realism, but only a total ignoramous would try to claim that anti-realism could ever be scientific.


Science is shown to be.......


And so the foundationless illogical ************ starts spewing forth from the mouth of the biggest idiot ever to have lived. "Science is SHOWN to be....?"

SHOWN?

I haven't even read the rest of the f***ing sentence yet and know it is complete b***ocks because you are already starting off with a claim you have SHOWN something when all you have done is make one of your normal unfounded illogical assertions.


....the observation of internally perceived/sensed behaviour/order.


That is not what science is. That is what you have ASSERTED science is. As I and many others have repeatedly told you, you cannot just go around making blind assertions and claim them to be facts.


This order - these laws between things - [b]does exist, even within our own awareness!!



Whoopie Doo, ****-wallower. You have managed to catch up with Berkeley! Any idea about all of the philosophical arguments that went after him? Not a sausage. But then of course, you don't have to have read all the arguments that followed Berkeley, because you are the greatest thinker ever to have lived! So great, in fact, that it wasn't neccesary for you to learn about the philosophical errors of those who went before you and were refuted by those who came after themselves. Oh no, you just magically got straight to the answer without making any of the same errors.

Any chance you might answer those nine questions I asked you, penis-brain?


Science is the study of the order amongst the inner-sensations, even though you and science fail to recognise this.


Science is a method. That method does not work if one gets rid of the assumptions that there is an external reality which behaves the same for everybody. PHILOSOPHERS do not need to make these assumptions. SCIENTISTS do, but then you wouldn't know science from your own toilet mess.


Indeed, such an assumption is shown to be incorrect: science ponders the internal realm of the mind's perceived order.


Meaningless gibberish.


I object to your asserted statement.


I couldn't give a flying fanny what you object to. You have no credibility whatsoever. I asked you the same set of nine questions nearly TWENTY TIMES. At the end of it you offered one half of an answer to the first one and were subsequently SLAUGHTERED by several people because it was so obvious that your "reasoning" was about as watertight as sieve. Eventually you offered to answer the questions only if you were entitled to James Randis million. You did not explain why you deserved a million dollars for telling us what carnivores would eat in a world where there is no killing.


And in the process, I probably do much harm to W's claims.

You are about as far from being to harm Wittgensteins philosophy as my neighbours yorkshire terrier is from being able to lay a punch on Mike Tyson. It can yap it's head off alright - it thinks it is a big boy, but is it actually likely to do any real harm?

:big:

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No, Lifegazer. THESE THINGS ARE NOT OPEN TO DEBATE. PERIOD.

Sorry Geoffrey, but if I catch you brainwashing the readers with incorrect assumptions, I'm going to "debate" such nonsense, as I see it, whether you like it or not.
EVERY PHILOSOPHY ON EARTH IS OPEN TO DEBATE.

Wrong as usual. If you drop the assumption of an shared, consistent EXTERNAL reality then you have no hope of ever being able to accurately replicate anybodies results about anything at all, because there is no shared OBJECT for you to study. You've got no guarantee that my reality behaves the same as yours does. Philosophy can deal with anti-realism, but only a total ignoramous would try to claim that anti-realism could ever be scientific.

There's no reason whatsoever why we cannot be sharing the same internal realm. So that puts that objection to sleep.

And so the foundationless illogical ************ starts spewing forth from the mouth of the biggest idiot ever to have lived. "Science is SHOWN to be....?"

SHOWN?

I haven't even read the rest of the f***ing sentence yet and know it is complete b***ocks because you are already starting off with a claim you have SHOWN something when all you have done is make one of your normal unfounded illogical assertions.

Science... studys the order of qualia... hence science is the study of order existing within the mind. Science does not study external (to the mind) events. Fact. Your rational limitations are being well exposed here Geoffrey squire. And cut down on the language okay. It discredits you.

That is not what science is. That is what you have ASSERTED science is. As I and many others have repeatedly told you, you cannot just go around making blind assertions and claim them to be facts.

I give reasons for my philosophy. Try thinking about them.

Whoopie Doo, ****-wallower. You have managed to catch up with Berkeley! Any idea about all of the philosophical arguments that went after him? Not a sausage. But then of course, you don't have to have read all the arguments that followed Berkeley, because you are the greatest thinker ever to have lived! So great, in fact, that it wasn't neccesary for you to learn about the philosophical errors of those who went before you and were refuted by those who came after themselves. Oh no, you just magically got straight to the answer without making any of the same errors.

Spare me the party political broadcast and address the issues. I challenged your assertions with credible reason.
Furthermore, these assertions seem to be a basis for your agreement with Mr. W. So it's not looking too good for him either, at this point.

Any chance you might answer those nine questions I asked you, penis-brain?

Maybe. But if you want to talk about 'heaven' then you have to accept that those living within it will know their true ancestry. The laws of physics mean jack in heaven. Unless you understand this, such a discussion is pointless.

Science is a method. That method does not work if one gets rid of the assumptions that there is an external reality which behaves the same for everybody. PHILOSOPHERS do not need to make these assumptions. SCIENTISTS do, but then you wouldn't know science from your own toilet mess.

We all share the same internal realm. Science still functions. Notions of an external realm do expire. Everyone's a winner.

[Upchurch]

I've edited the last two posts for language. Let's watch the swear words, m'kay?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by slimshady2357


You and Interesting Ian agree on a lot of things, I wonder if he would agree with those statements? From things he has said in the past, I doubt it.

Ian?

Adam

I myself might have argued differently in the past. Times change and sometimes peoples philosophy changes with it. For a start I would now say that there is a difference between what I may choose to believe privately about the absolute nature of reality, and what I would choose to speak about in public about the absolute nature of reality. In private, you can have various direct experiences and things like intuition feeding into your personal philosophy, but these things are no use to anyone-else. In public, you must be able to defend your philosophy on EVERY level. That includes things like morality, ethics and standards of personal behaviour. To take an extreme but VERY pertinent example - if you are going to claim divinity for yourself (like Lifegazer does) then you'd better make sure you BEHAVE like a divine being, and not like a jumped-up arrogant ignorant fool, otherwise you risk being far more offensive towards God than any atheist. Saying "I do not believe in God" is one thing. Saying "I am God" and then behaving like a total w****r is bad news.

These days I am more concerned about what will actually make a difference to society, rather than esoteric arguments about the nature of reality. I am not Ian and Ian is not me.

[UndercoverElephant]

Lifegazer


Sorry Geoffrey, but if I catch you brainwashing the readers with incorrect assumptions, I'm going to "debate" such nonsense, as I see it, whether you like it or not.


You do not even know the meaning of the word "debate". For you, "debate" means making all sorts of criticisms of other peoples positions but making NO ATTEMPT to answer criticisms of your own. That is not "debate". That is lecturing and preaching when you have not earned the right to lecture or preach.


EVERY PHILOSOPHY ON EARTH IS OPEN TO DEBATE.


Does that include YOURS?

If so, any chance of an answer to my questions?

No, I didn't think so.

"Debate" is a two-way process. In your case this does not happen because you NEVER answer any of the questions which people throw at you. As a result, NOBODY takes anything you say seriously.


There's no reason whatsoever why we cannot be sharing the same internal realm. So that puts that objection to sleep.


What?

"Sharing the same internal realm?"

Wow! The idiocy reaches new levels!

Listen, nappy-boy, IF YOU WERE SHARING MY INTERNAL REALM THEN YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO READ MY THOUGHTS. You can't. :D


Science... studys the order of qualia...


SCIENCE cannot even DEFINE "qualia" you moron.

Please give us a SCIENTIFIC definition of qualia. That means you have to define it terms of other unambigious and uncontraverisal scientific terms.


hence science is the study of order existing within the mind. Science does not study external (to the mind) events. Fact. Your rational limitations are being well exposed here Geoffrey squire. And cut down on the language okay. It discredits you.


You have NO credibility, nappy boy.

Answer my nine questions. Wanna reminder of what they were?



Furthermore, these assertions seem to be a basis for your agreement with Mr. W. So it's not looking too good for him either, at this point.


I'm sure he is quaking in his grave. :rolleyes:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any chance you might answer those nine questions I asked you, penis-brain?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe. But if you want to talk about 'heaven' then you have to accept that those living within it will know their true ancestry. The laws of physics mean jack in heaven. Unless you understand this, such a discussion is pointless.


I never asked you about the laws of PHYSICS. I asked you about the laws of LOGIC. Understand the difference?

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. DO NOT GIVE EXCUSES ABOUT WHY YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED THEM. JUST ANSWER THEM.


We all share the same internal realm.


No we do not. You cannot read my thoughts. I cannot read yours. Therefore we DO NOT share the same internal realm. You are talking out of your backside, as usual.


Science still functions. Notions of an external realm do expire. Everyone's a winner.


Everyones a winner except you. You are a loser.

[UndercoverElephant]

The original questions you can't answer :

In your paradise, do carnivores still eat other animals?
Update : Partial answer : "There will be no killing."

In your paradise, do animals still die?

Does being eaten involve suffering?

Does starvation involve suffering?

Or is a world without suffering a logical impossibility?


The second set of questions, based upon your inability to answer the originals :

Can I assume that you are now ready to admit your "childish imagination" (your words) of a paradise where there is no suffering is in fact illogical and impossible as well as being a childish fantasy?

If so, can you please explain why anybody who thinks critically (like skeptics choose to) should join you in your childish fantasies?

Do you think the world would be a better place if all the skeptics adopted your childish fantasy?

Don't you think your own development might be helped by growing out of your childish fantasies and learning to reason like a rational adult?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by slimshady2357


You and Interesting Ian agree on a lot of things, I wonder if he would agree with those statements? From things he has said in the past, I doubt it.


If we agree "Naturalism is a metaphysical theory which holds that all phenomena can be explained mechanistically in terms of natural (as opposed to supernatural) causes and laws. Naturalism posits that the universe is a vast machine or organism, devoid of general purpose and indifferent to human needs and desires", who could dispute science requiring it as necessary?

"That External (objective) Reality exist" is also necessary, and is strictly implied by a rational denial of solipsism, imo.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I am not Ian and Ian is not me.
First off, I don't think you are Ian, nor have I ever thought that!

I merely thought it would be interesting to see why you two, who agree on quite a bit, would disagree here.

These days I am more concerned about what will actually make a difference to society, rather than esoteric arguments about the nature of reality.

Interesting, I seem to remember quite a few people here saying words very much like that to you in the old days. Strange world, eh? :)

Anyway, in particular, I have seen Ian argue that science does not need to assume an external reality.

Perhaps he will come by and speak about it. Perhaps I will start a new thread if necessary :D

Adam

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by hammegk


"That External (objective) Reality exist" is also necessary

As I mentioned, it is this part that Ian disagrees with. But perhaps it is only due to terminology.

When Geoff said 'external realism' I took him to mean scientific realism, as in "the quarks are really 'out there' ". You seem to be saying that " 'the quarks are really 'out there' " could mean that in an idealistic way, in that they are still "mind dependent".

It's the 'realism' part I would suspect Ian would disagree with.

Like I said, I think it could be terminology. But I also think it would be an interesting discussion.

Adam

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by slimshady2357

I merely thought it would be interesting to see why you two, who agree on quite a bit, would disagree here.


Well I am not sure I am particularly interested in having that debate here. I would be much more interested in having it over at philosophyforums.com.


Interesting, I seem to remember quite a few people here saying words very much like that to you in the old days. Strange world, eh? :)


It is a strange world, yes. There was a part of me that made the same mistake that Lifegazer makes, although he is considerably worse than I ever was. He thinks that if everybody believed they "are God" that the world would instantly change and we would find ourselves in some sort of paradise. This is of course abject nonsense, as demonstrated by the fact that Lifegazer himself experiences nothing but conflict and misery everywhere he goes.

It wasn't only Wittgenstein that I did not understand (at all) at the time. More importantly I did not understand the relevance of Karl Marx. If Lifegazer actually knew anything about human nature, philosophy, politics or logic he would realise that standing between his navel-gazing idealistic dreaming and the hard reality we live in is a man called Karl Marx who actually tried to devise the philosophical underpinnings of a world where "All is one". In reality, I suspect that Lifegazer has never even heard of Marx.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by slimshady2357

As I mentioned, it is this part that Ian disagrees with. But perhaps it is only due to terminology.

When Geoff said 'external realism' I took him to mean scientific realism, as in "the quarks are really 'out there' ". You seem to be saying that " 'the quarks are really 'out there' " could mean that in an idealistic way, in that they are still "mind dependent".


What matters (for science) is that quarks do quark-things and they are not being influenced by the person observing them. Think of it like this : What if two people are observing a single quark simultaneously? If we lose the assumption that the behaviour of the quark is mind-independent then whose mind is influencing the quark? It rapidly turns into a mess.

You could make an argument that idealism is true, but that the observed world behaves precisely as if materialism were true. In this case, you can still do science but what is the relevance of your theory? What is the difference between living in a world where materialism is true and living in a world where idealism is true but the world is functionally identical to one where materialism is true? As soon as your idealism makes a real difference to the way the material world behaves, then it starts devaluing the usefulness of science because you cannot be sure WHY what is happening is happening. If your idealism makes no difference to the way the material world behaves then you can do science, but your theory is irrelevant (to the skeptical scientist at least - it might be relevant to you personally). What matters HERE is what is relevant from the POV of a skeptic or a scientist, this being a skeptic site.

Lifegazer would claim that the "mere knowledge" that idealism is true will transform the world, but he himself provides ample evidence to the contrary. Can you imagine a world full of Lifegazers?

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by JustGeoff

What matters (for science) is that quarks do quark-things and they are not being influenced by the person observing them. Think of it like this : What if two people are observing a single quark simultaneously? If we lose the assumption that the behaviour of the quark is mind-independent then whose mind is influencing the quark? It rapidly turns into a mess.

You could make an argument that idealism is true, but that the observed world behaves precisely as if materialism were true. In this case, you can still do science but what is the relevance of your theory? What is the difference between living in a world where materialism is true and living in a world where idealism is true but the world is functionally identical to one where materialism is true? As soon as your idealism makes a real difference to the way the material world behaves, then it starts devaluing the usefulness of science. If your idealism makes no difference to the way the material world behaves then you can do science, but your theory is irrelevant.

Lifegazer would claim that the "mere knowledge" that idealism is true will transform the world, but he himself provides ample evidence to the contrary. Can you imagine a world full of Lifegazers?

First off, I agree with most of what you said and I'm thinking even more now that there is going to be little to no disagreement after all :)

Second, that paragraph in bold! :D

Come on, even you must find it ironic to be typing those words! I doubt I could count on my fingers and toes the number of times someone from here said basically the same thing to you in the past on this very board. It's nice to see you come around ;) I think Stimpy must have asked you for the pragmatic reason to believe in Idealism about a hundred times himself :D

Like I said, the world is a strange place :)

I think you could have learned some good philosophy here Geoff, you just didn't want to listen then. And to be fair, very few people wanted to listen to you either and they could have learned much too. Sadly, it's all too the norm around here.

Anyway, I'm off for now, always nice to chat :)

Adam

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by slimshady2357

I doubt I could count on my fingers and toes the number of times someone from here said basically the same thing to you in the past on this very board. It's nice to see you come around.


I was looking elsewhere at the time, rather like LG is now. I already said earlier in the thread that we all have a tendency to see the faults in other peoples arguments but be blind to the faults in our own. However, LG has taken this to a new level.


Like I said, the world is a strange place.


Believe me, I think it is much stranger than you do. ;)


I think you could have learned some good philosophy here Geoff, you just didn't want to listen then. And to be fair, very few people wanted to listen to you either and they could have learned much too. Sadly, it's all too the norm around here.


This is a bad place to do philosophy. And maybe that is an even greater irony, because it was in fact me myself who originally asked for a philosophy forum to be put here, back in the very first week this forum opened.

Funny old world. :D

Geoff.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


.... What is the difference between living in a world where materialism is true and living in a world where idealism is true but the world is functionally identical to one where materialism is true? ...

Perhaps the existence of the book The Mathematical Basis of Morality?

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by JustGeoff

This is a bad place to do philosophy. And maybe that is an even greater irony, because it was in fact me myself who originally asked for a philosophy forum to be put here, back in the very first week this forum opened.

Funny old world. :D

Geoff.

Well, you were a hell of a participant! :)

And you were one of the few that provided conversation that was actually useful to some of us :)

I know you think this is a bad place to do philosophy, and I think it probably is too (more so today than ever), but I think people on the sidelines get something out of even some of the more combative threads. When you don't take a side and defend it no matter what (dogmatic peole? do we see that here? :rolleyes: Nah!) you can get something out of even the kinds of debates that are usual here.

Plus, every now and then there is a really good thread :)

What are the Philosophy Forums like? I've only visited once, for a quick look.

Adam

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by slimshady2357

First off, I don't think you are Ian, nor have I ever thought that!

I merely thought it would be interesting to see why you two, who agree on quite a bit, would disagree here.



Interesting, I seem to remember quite a few people here saying words very much like that to you in the old days. Strange world, eh? :)

Anyway, in particular, I have seen Ian argue that science does not need to assume an external reality.


Adam

I have said no such thing. I have never denied an external reality. You must try to appreciate that simply because I hold the position that one cannot abstract the common world of sensory experiences from mind or minds, this does not mean to say there is no external world. The world is external to me in that I cannot alter it merely by thinking about it. A mind-independent existence doesn't define an external world.

And of course we do not need to assume a mind-independent reality in order to do science. It is sufficient that the external world exhibits regularities which can be described by theories written in the language of mathematics. Now it is true that some scientists like to regard such theories as characterising reality per se, or at least that our successive theories come closer and closer to characterising reality (I believe that Popper tried to argue this). Thus they would be arguing for scientific realism as opposed to instrumentalism. But this just essentially reflects a psychological disposition on their part. Besides, (and I know this might be confusing to people) scientific realism is compatible with the notion that there is no mind-independent reality in anycase!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


You could make an argument that idealism is true, but that the observed world behaves precisely as if materialism were true. In this case, you can still do science but what is the relevance of your theory?

More appropriately one could make the argument that materialism is true, but that the observed world behaves precisely as if idealism were true. In this case, you can still do science but what is the relevance of your theory?


Now this is clearly superior to your hypothesis (not theory) because for a kick-off one is not introducing a wholly unknown, and indeed unknowable, mind-independent reality. And this is before we start to consider that no type of materialism can in principle fit phenomenological consciousness into its metaphysic (ie we must simply declare that consciousness is logically derived from brain processes without ever being able to show how this is so)..

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I have said no such thing. I have never denied an external reality.

You are right. As I mentioned in the PM to you earlier, it was geoff's use of the word 'realism' that set me wondering.

I most definitely made a mistake by using 'external reality' in the text you quoted.

As I also said in the PM, hammy's use of the term 'external reality' instead of 'external realism' had me thinking him and Geoff were actually talking about different things.

In fact I was twice mistaken, as I assumed Geoff was talking about the kind of scientific realism assumed by many scientists, a materialistic realism, of course. And so I thought he disagreed with you.

But as you point out, scientific realism could be interpreted as mind dependent realism.

Ah well, what are you going to do :)

Adam

[UndercoverElephant]

What are the Philosophy Forums like? I've only visited once, for a quick look.


I like PF because there is a much wider and much more balanced selection of views expressed, and because there is far less scope for bullsh**. If you try to "wing it" at PF, somebody will notice. It is also almost troll-free. In other words, it is actually philosophy being discussed, rather than the combination of mud wrestling, bear baiting and travelling freak show which this site it.

:)

[UndercoverElephant]

Hi Ian

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

More appropriately one could make the argument that materialism is true, but that the observed world behaves precisely as if idealism were true. In this case, you can still do science but what is the relevance of your theory?


:D


Now this is clearly superior to your hypothesis (not theory) because for a kick-off one is not introducing a wholly unknown, and indeed unknowable, mind-independent reality.


I'm not actually trying to defend any theory. I am talking strictly hypothetical these days.

I'm certainly not trying to compete with you, or with anyone else (with the possible exception of LG because I find him offensive).

Basically, ontology does not matter to me in quite the way it once did. I have other concerns.

Geoff.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by JustGeoff

If Lifegazer actually knew anything about human nature, philosophy, politics or logic he would realise that standing between his navel-gazing idealistic dreaming and the hard reality we live in is a man called Karl Marx who actually tried to devise the philosophical underpinnings of a world where "All is one". In reality, I suspect that Lifegazer has never even heard of Marx.

Marx was a dialectical materialist (a hard one :D ). His conception about a society with equal individuals was not based on the mystical idea of becoming ONE. He was anti-religion person.
I know what's your point, indirectly the failure of socialism proved that men are not willing to sacrifice their self- interest for the self interest of the commune.

Q-S

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Q-Source

Marx was a dialectical materialist (a hard one :D ).


Yes, I know this....


His conception about a society with equal individuals was not based on the mystical idea of becoming ONE. He was anti-religion person.


Yes, Quewey, I know this too.... :)


I know what's your point, indirectly the failure of socialism proved that men are not willing to sacrifice their self- interest for the self interest of the commune.


Something along those lines. The point was that Marx cared about the real-world practicalities of creating "Unification" of all men.

Lifegazer believes in a PHYSICAL paradise.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

By what sense can the mind be external to its sensations? This would say, also, that the sensations are external to the mind.
The mind is indivisible Russ. It exists and things (perceptions, even of identity) exist abstractly, within that mind.


I said that our sensations sense a world external to our own awareness. You already divided your mind into the god self, and all the other "human" senses of self. You cannot divide your mind and then claim it indivisible.


My philosophy reduces existence to 'God'. That's it. And everything internal to God - God's perceptions - are just abstract things.


God himself cannot have perceptions if god is the only thing that exists. You philosophy does allow god to create a bunch of little "senses of self" and then god feeds those "senses of self" perceptions. (BTW, you are just restating your assumptions rather than responding to my post)


There is no real lifegazer. There is no real Russ. Just perceptions of you know who.


So, the only think that is real, are the perceptions of who I know, but I perceive, and my perceptions are real, does that not neccessitate the I being real (me). You cannot say something's perceptions are real, but the thing perceiving is not.


You've derailed the thread Russ. The post I made challenged this:-
1) Science can only operate within the assumption that only physical things exist.
2) Qualia are defined to be non-physical.


The post you made really has nothing to do with this thread. Also, your argument and "proofs" have been torn to shreads, so it makes no sense for you to talk about them here as if they are fact.


Science thinks it is objective because it understands existential order (to a large degree). But it will not concede to the fact that it (science) is the study of the mind's internal qualia... and the order thereof. Thus science is an internal practise - not dealing with any supposed external realm - and not needing one to function, either.


My post argues that even your philosophy considers that our senses bring us information about a relatiy external to ourselves. Repeating your assumptions (again) will not help you here.


Science is in dire need of a revolution... and so is philosophy.

Really? It seems to me to be moving at breakneck speed with huge success. Why should we return it to the dark ages?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Sorry Geoffrey, but if I catch you brainwashing the readers with incorrect assumptions, I'm going to "debate" such nonsense, as I see it, whether you like it or not.
EVERY PHILOSOPHY ON EARTH IS OPEN TO DEBATE.


Should every philosophy be open to debate to everyone, or just a select few? (answer carefully)


There's no reason whatsoever why we cannot be sharing the same internal realm. So that puts that objection to sleep.


Because you already stated that the realm we experience is fed to us by the god part of the mind though a system of "blueprints". That makes a realm external to ourselfves.


Science... studys the order of qualia... hence science is the study of order existing within the mind. Science does not study external (to the mind) events. Fact. Your rational limitations are being well exposed here Geoffrey squire. And cut down on the language okay. It discredits you.


more repeated assumptions....


I give reasons for my philosophy. Try thinking about them.


If you make a blind assertion for why you believe, you are giving a reason for why you believe. If all you are giving is blind assertions, why should he bother listening to you at all?


Spare me the party political broadcast and address the issues. I challenged your assertions with credible reason.


Nope, sorry, I've been following your posts and haven't seen an ounce of credible reason. It would probably do you a lot of good to read up on the stuff he is talking about.


Furthermore, these assertions seem to be a basis for your agreement with Mr. W. So it's not looking too good for him either, at this point.


?


Maybe. But if you want to talk about 'heaven' then you have to accept that those living within it will know their true ancestry. The laws of physics mean jack in heaven. Unless you understand this, such a discussion is pointless.


Where did heaven come from? Oh, I see, when everyone believes in your god, we will go there, right? Does your philosophy have a hell too?


We all share the same internal realm. Science still functions. Notions of an external realm do expire. Everyone's a winner.

More simple restatement of assumptions, sad really.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by JustGeoff

Lifegazer believes in a PHYSICAL paradise.

Aparently, you've gotten to him somehow, he was just talking about heaven in another thread, and how the laws of physics would not apply to it

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by RussDill


Aparently, you've gotten to him somehow, he was just talking about heaven in another thread, and how the laws of physics would not apply to it

Maybe he has actually sat down and thought about trying to answer those 9 questions I asked him twenty times. A minor miracle I know, but it is possible, isn't it? :D

Funny though, I swear he has been arguing that "heaven" is a place on Earth "after the revolution", rather than a completely different reality. Now, it seems, the rules of reality (the laws of physics) must change before "the revolution" can happen.

Very interesting. :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by RussDill


Aparently, you've gotten to him somehow, he was just talking about heaven in another thread, and how the laws of physics would not apply to it

The laws of physics will apply to a non-physical realm? :confused: I guess that could be the case. But what makes you so certain?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


The laws of physics will apply to a non-physical realm? :confused: I guess that could be the case. But what makes you so certain?

Ian,

I think its our friend Lifegazer who is confused, not Russ. He's not quite sure what he means by "heaven". He used to think it refered to this Universe "after the revolution", but now he seems to believe that "after the revolution" TLOP will have changed.

Basically, Lifegazer doesn't actually know what he means by "heaven" or "after the revolution". He does not know whether he is talking about a physical realm or a non-physical realm - he has not thought at all about how it could work - he's just making it up as he goes along. :)

Or rather he has been forced to accept that according to the laws of LOGIC as we know them a physical world "without killing" does not make sense. So now he is trying to argue that TLOP will change. I suspect he believes that a new set of TLOP can be invented by God which allow breaches in basic logic. I also suspect that this is not going to help him out of the logical hole he has dug for himself. It is a long long way down, but I can still just make out two tired little eyes blinking up at us from down in the gloom.

Geoff.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


The laws of physics will apply to a non-physical realm? :confused: I guess that could be the case. But what makes you so certain?

I added the part about the laws of physics not applying to make it clear that lifegazer is talking about a non physical realm

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
What?

"Sharing the same internal realm?"

Wow! The idiocy reaches new levels!

Listen, nappy-boy, IF YOU WERE SHARING MY INTERNAL REALM THEN YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO READ MY THOUGHTS. You can't. :D

It's God's internal realm. Wakey wakey. All perceived being exists within the mind of God... is my philosophy.
So, I repeat: There's no reason whatsoever why we cannot be sharing the same internal realm. So that puts that objection to sleep.

"Science... studys the order of qualia..."

SCIENCE cannot even DEFINE "qualia" you moron.

Science is founded upon sensed experience... qualia. Furthermore, the scientific method requires that all theories be experienced as qualia for confirmation.

Please give us a SCIENTIFIC definition of qualia.

Science is interested in the appearance of things perceived within qualia. So, the scientific definition of qualia amounts to the order of the things seen amongst abstract experience.
So, just to spell it out for you: science is the study of the order of things perceived amongst qualia.
Abstract experience precedes all science.

That means you have to define it terms of other unambigious and uncontraverisal scientific terms.

I live for contraversy. Science needs to reform.

Answer my nine questions. Wanna reminder of what they were?

In another thread on another day. Presently, I'm much more concerned with showing people that both you and Mr. W are incorrect.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
The point was that Marx cared about the real-world practicalities of creating "Unification" of all men.

You cannot have the unification of people unless those people actually think they are One.
The unification of mankind is where we are headed. Either that or armageddon.
But this isn't the right place to discuss this. Here, I'd rather prove that Mr W was wrong.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You cannot have the unification of people unless those people actually think they are One.
The unification of mankind is where we are headed. Either that or armageddon.
But this isn't the right place to discuss this. Here, I'd rather prove that Mr W was wrong.

Really? I'm perfectly happy co-existing with my fellow man. Also, I don't really care for total unification, I think if we were all one big country, and one big corporation, I think it would really stifle innovation. Diversity is the way nature succeds, diversity is the way man has succeded, why shouldn't we stick with it?

[lifegazer]

"Wittgenstein and the end of Philosophy"

Philosophy and the end of Wittgenstein... is what I want to discuss.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

It's God's internal realm. Wakey wakey. All perceived being exists within the mind of God... is my philosophy.
So, I repeat: There's no reason whatsoever why we cannot be sharing the same internal realm. So that puts that objection to sleep.


In your philosophy, we do share the same realm, but not the same portion of that realm. Just like in materialism (gasp). Our thoughts, emotions, memories, sense of self, senses, etc, are all divided, seperated, etc, in your philosphy.


Science is founded upon sensed experience... qualia. Furthermore, the scientific method requires that all theories be experienced as qualia for confirmation.
Science is interested in the appearance of things perceived within qualia. So, the scientific definition of qualia amounts to the order of the things seen amongst abstract experience.
So, just to spell it out for you: science is the study of the order of things perceived amongst qualia.
Abstract experience precedes all science.


We go a lot deeper than qualia in observation. We utilize the tool of mathmatics to do this. Sure, when we read the readout, we may notice the numbers are red, but that isn't the information we are taking.


I live for contraversy. Science needs to reform.


I think you only believe your philosophy because you think its contraversial and new. Got news for you, neither is true. Also, you keep claiming science needs reform, how would you improve science, how would your improvements speed advancements?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
We go a lot deeper than qualia in observation.

The only definite level deeper than qualia, is The Mind which imposes them upon its own awareness, for self-purpose.
You still don't understand that 'knowledge' is the reasoning of sensations. I.e., things are defined amidst the qualia of existence.

We utilize the tool of mathmatics to do this.

Mathematics... formulated by reason (of the mind)... dealing with order (of things, seen amidst qualia).
So, math is of the mind too.

[hammegk]

This discussion of the semantics (language) of "qualia" is in a well-named thread, I'd say. :D

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The only definite level deeper than qualia, is The Mind which imposes them upon its own awareness, for self-purpose.


Thats an assumption on your part, you are using a circular argument.


You still don't understand that 'knowledge' is the reasoning of sensations. I.e., things are defined amidst the qualia of existence.


I can gain knowledge without reasoning amonst sensations. For instance, if I define in my mind a system of counting, I can then learn knowledge based on this system of counting. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, don't mean that they don't understand, its a very pompous attitude. Lemme see, repeat assumptions, check, insult intelligence, check.


Mathematics... formulated by reason (of the mind)... dealing with order (of things, seen amidst qualia).
So, math is of the mind too.

umm...can you come up with an argument any more circular than that? You cannot claim that my argument is incorrect by using an assumption within your own.

edited for spelling.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Also, you keep claiming science needs reform, how would you improve science, how would your improvements speed advancements?
Ditch the assertion that what we are studying is an external realm.
Indeed, admit that science is the study of [internally] perceived order.
Concede to the fact that the mind creates its own inner-sensations. Therefore, save billions and billions on research trying to prove a 1-dimensional string created what we see.

Open to the possibility that Idealists are correct and divert funds to researching this - specifically in psychology and such things as the placebo-effect.
But also stop assuming that all things perceived are created by other things perceived. Clearly, an unperceived ~thing~ is the creator of perceived things.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by lifegazer
"Wittgenstein and the end of Philosophy"

Philosophy and the end of Wittgenstein... is what I want to discuss.

Good, back to the topic again.

I am very interested to hear why you consider that it is the end of Wittgenstein and not philosophy. It is the use of language games what we are talking about here...

Q-S

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Ditch the assertion that what we are studying is an external realm.
Indeed, admit that science is the study of [internally] perceived order.
Concede to the fact that the mind creates its own inner-sensations. Therefore, save billions and billions on research trying to prove a 1-dimensional string created what we see.


Was it useless to say that atoms makeup what we see? Was it useless to say that energy is quantitized in packets? Was it useless to say that particles behave as waves? Its this type of theorectical work that has advanced science for the past 100 years. Without that work, you wouldn't not have your computer. The standard model and general relativity are incomplete. There is no telling what advances we can unlock. However, with your revolution, I guess we'll just stick with what we got instead.


Open to the possibility that Idealists are correct and divert funds to researching this - specifically in psychology and such things as the placebo-effect.


Psycohology and the placebo effect are already studied pretty carefully and understood to a large degree. The process by which the brain effects healing in the body is not a mystery. Also, funds have been diverted for idealists before, nothing has ever come for it, its only in the past few hundred years we have decided to divert funds to scientists.


But also stop assuming that all things perceived are created by other things perceived. Clearly, an unperceived ~thing~ is the creator of perceived things.

You haven't named any advances science would make. Instead, you have suggested that we stop work in the areas that have provided the most advances, and promise the most in the future. You instead suggest that we re-enter the dark ages.

Try again.

[UndercoverElephant]

Lifegazer.


It's God's internal realm. Wakey wakey. All perceived being exists within the mind of God... is my philosophy.


And again you demonstrate that you are in fact "logically handicapped". You think we share an internal realm. Can you read my mind? No. Can I read yours? Fortunately, no. Inevitable conclusion : We do NOT share an internal realm.

Ah, you say, bu "my philosophy" says that we all share an internal realm, so it must to true, so there, boom boom!

I mean....eh? :confused:

You seem to think that if your theory is in direct contradiction to observed reality, that this means that your theory is right and observed reality is wrong. You are completely insane. :D


So, I repeat: There's no reason whatsoever why we cannot be sharing the same internal realm. So that puts that objection to sleep.


eh?

THE REASON IS THAT YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON IN MY MIND AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON IN YOURS? HOW CAN YOU BE SO UNBELIEVABLY STUPID!!!!?


So, the scientific definition of qualia amounts to the order of the things seen amongst abstract experience.


How is that "scientific"?


So, just to spell it out for you: science is the study of the order of things perceived amongst qualia.
Abstract experience precedes all science.


Ah. So qualia "precede" science.

How can something which PRECEDES science also be part of science?


quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answer my nine questions. Wanna reminder of what they were?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In another thread on another day.


Until you provide the answers I will continue to beat you over the head with the questions. :)


Presently, I'm much more concerned with showing people that both you and Mr. W are incorrect.


Hmm. Not having much luck, are you nappy boy?! :D

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You cannot have the unification of people unless those people actually think they are One.


Oh my.

Oh my oh my oh my.



Hold the front page!

Lifegazer has figured out where Marx went wrong everybody!


Apparently, Marx made the mistake of not telling everyone "They are One"! WOO-HOO!

Lifegazer has solved the worlds problems! All we have to do is re-issue the life works of Karl Marx with "Oh, and by the way you are all One" on the inner sleeve, and all the problems will go away!!!!

:dl:

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Geoff said:
Basically, ontology does not matter to me in quite the way it once did. I have other concerns.
Excellent! Glad to hear that an incoherent concept is mattering less these days. What are your new concerns?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Geoff said:
And again you demonstrate that you are in fact "logically handicapped". You think we share an internal realm. Can you read my mind? No. Can I read yours? Fortunately, no. Inevitable conclusion : We do NOT share an internal realm.
You are assuming that share means to have something in common and to have nothing else besides. Perhaps we share whatever it is that creates the illusion of an external, common world, and, in addition, have our own private minds.

Hey, that sounds like a great metaphysic! What shall we call it? :rolleyes:

~~ Paul

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Excellent! Glad to hear that an incoherent concept is mattering less these days. What are your new concerns?

~~ Paul

Regarding your question :

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

Regarding Wittgenstein :

FIRST you must understand it. ONLY THEN can you throw it away.

edit : actually that is not fair. You do not claim or pretend to be a philosopher, so you are free to throw it away at any time you choose. Only people claiming to be philosophers need to understand Wittgenstein, apart from Lifegazer of course, because he knows everything already!

:)

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Hey, that sounds like a great metaphysic! What shall we call it?



Very very old. ;)

[UndercoverElephant]

Paul :

Many 20th century philosophers have made claims like "There is nothing left for philosophy to say". Certainly the best of them did not do metaphysics. Both Wittgenstein and my own personal favourite philosopher, Richard Rorty, have explicitly said that metaphysics should be avoided. However, as I am sure you must realise, in order to be able to say that metaphysics must be avoided and to also know what they were talking about, first they had to study what has already been written about metaphysics. This last bit is actually quite important, and it is what I was trying to say in the previous post : First you must understand it, then you can throw it away. In other words there is nothing ELSE to be said about metaphysics. Some people, just like you, have misunderstood this to mean "all metaphysics is incoherent and meaningless".

You see, the problem with this misunderstanding is that people who have not actually studied metaphysics before they threw it away do not know how to avoid making metaphysical mistakes. So in effect, those people CANNOT throw it away, because it is embedded in their beliefs and the way they use their language. In order to be able to throw it away, you have to understand what "it" actually is. This is even more true of Rorty than it is of Wittgenstein.

This sets up what seems like a bit of a paradox, because it means that before you can understand what either Wittgenstein or Rorty are really about, you have to learn about the very things they claim to be seeking to avoid.

Did that make any sense?

It is impossible to properly understand Wittgenstein if you have not first understood at least some of what went before, so even though Wittgenstein is rejecting what went before, any person claiming to understand philosophy CANNOT simply reject what went before, at least not until they have first stared it in the face. Many people at this site claim to reject metaphysics, but in fact base their entire arguments on BAD metaphysics that they do not even realise is metaphysics.

FIRST you must understand it, THEN you can throw it away.

Geoff

[UndercoverElephant]

One other comment :

An additional consequence of what I just said about metaphysics makes it immoral to ram metaphysics down the throats of people who are not interested in learning about metaphysics. It is a kind of intellectual sado-masochism that can only be indulged in by people who have chosen to do that to themselves.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

FIRST you must understand it, THEN you can throw it away.
Ah, the old "only the initiated can play the game" gambit. Perhaps it's true of philosophy.

Be that as it may, I have an alternative:
If you try to understand it and can't, perhaps it is because it is incoherent. Then you might as well throw it away.

I must be a pompous ass, because I'm sure Wittgenstein is gobs cleverer than I am. Can you summarize his conclusions about ontology?

~~ Paul

[lifegazer]

The languages we speak have limitations in defining abstract experience. Ask me what 'pain' is, for example, and I'll be hard pressed to define it to you in terms you'll understand if you have never experienced it for yourself.
Language struggles with concepts such as this. But the amazing thing is that we share a common abstract-existence. Even without definition, people understand the use of such terms because they have personal/intimate inner-experience of them themselves.
Experience is the barometer of understanding specific concepts - not language.
This, I feel, is highly significant when confronted with statements proclaiming the death of philosophy because of the shortcomings of language. Philosophy is founded upon the abstract experience of our awareness... an experience which is beyond explanation, perhaps... but which is certainly not beyond understanding when shared with entities of a like-mind.
"I feel hot", for example, is something probably everyone here comprehends without having a chapter of text presented before their eyes to define what I mean.

The biggest problem facing philosophy, is not one of language, but one of bias. We all understand each other, largely. I, for example, certainly understand the materialist's point-of-view.
But we have our own philosophies founded upon opposing axioms. It is these beliefs which need to be addressed. That's why my prime concern is one of the justification of founding axioms. I.e., ridding philosophy of assumption.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The languages we speak have limitations in defining abstract experience. Ask me what 'pain' is, for example, and I'll be hard pressed to define it to you in terms you'll understand if you have never experienced it for yourself.
Language struggles with concepts such as this. But the amazing thing is that we share a common abstract-existence. Even without definition, people understand the use of such terms because they have personal/intimate inner-experience of them themselves.
Experience is the barometer of understanding specific concepts - not language.


Did you know that women and men experience pain differently? You will never know what it is truly for a woman to experience pain, it could be a very different experience. You can go even further than that, autistic people are aware of reality in a completely different way than you, its not their sensations that are different, its their sense of self. Even so, I'm not sure I quite understand what human experiences have to do with proving the mind.


This, I feel, is highly significant when confronted with statements proclaiming the death of philosophy because of the shortcomings of language. Philosophy is founded upon the abstract experience of our awareness... an experience which is beyond explanation, perhaps... but which is certainly not beyond understanding when shared with entities of a like-mind.
"I feel hot", for example, is something probably everyone here comprehends without having a chapter of text presented before their eyes to define what I mean.


Actually understanding what the process of "feeling hot" and what brings it about however, is a very complex manner which we are beginning to understand in great detail.


The biggest problem facing philosophy, is not one of language, but one of bias. We all understand each other, largely. I, for example, certainly understand the materialist's point-of-view.
But we have our own philosophies founded upon opposing axioms. It is these beliefs which need to be addressed. That's why my prime concern is one of the justification of founding axioms. I.e., ridding philosophy of assumption.

Sure, how about we start with your philosophy.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
And again you demonstrate that you are in fact "logically handicapped". You think we share an internal realm. Can you read my mind? No. Can I read yours? Fortunately, no. Inevitable conclusion : We do NOT share an internal realm.

Look Geoff, it doesn't do you any favours that I have to explain a simple concept to you three times before you understand.

The realm we share is not yours or mine or even my hamster's. The realm we share is [The Mind of] God. That means that the perception of being you is within God and the perception of being me is within God.
What it also means is that God gives life to, is, and reads the thoughts of both of us.
What it does not mean is that [the perception of being] 'Geoff' or 'lifegazer' gives life to, is, or can read the thoughts of the other or of God.

Take a time-out to understand my philosophy if you're going to try and discredit it.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Ah, the old "only the initiated can play the game" gambit. Perhaps it's true of philosophy.


If it's true of anything then it's true of post-Wittgensteinian philosophy.


Can you summarize his conclusions about ontology?


In one post? :D

Wittgenstein was a philosopher of language. He had two basic positions, the first published in the tractatus when he was in his 20's was an attempt to create a "one true meta-language" - a sinlge perfect linguistic basis or the rest of philosophy - which eventually led to logical positivism, which has since been discredited. The second he worked on for the rest of his life and was published after his death - called "philosophical investigations". The thrust of this second work was that the only thing left for philosophy to do was to analyse different "language games" and see how they were related to each other. Once you have understood how the language-games are related then all the other problems on philosophy resolve themselves automatically. In other words, do not bother with ontology at all, just sort out your own sloppy and confused usage of language and the answers will present themselves on a plate.

:)

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Take a time-out to understand my philosophy if you're going to try and discredit it.

When you have answered the nine questions I have asked you twenty times I might consider answering some of yours.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Mwahahaha. Then Wittgenstein was a fool. Are you sure there wasn't some problem with translation from the German?

There will be no sorting out of the language games. They are, all the way down, language games. They are not some Bible code that, if only we could find the right key, will lead us in the happy fields of the One True Philosophy.

~~ Paul

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

There will be no sorting out of the language games. They are, all the way down, language games. They are not some Bible code that, if only we could find the right key, will lead us in the happy fields of the One True Philosophy.


That isn't what I said. I probably didn't say it very clearly. The second half of Wittgensteins work was about AVOIDING the idea that there was "One True Philosophy". All there is is DIFFERENT language games. Those language games have different purposes and there is no absolute limit to their usefulness. All that is left for philosophy to do is analyse the language games.

If you think that makes Wittgenstein a fool then that is your business. I am not here to defend Wittgenstein from people who are in no position to attack him, not least because I am in no position to defend him.

Ask me when I have finished my philosophy degree and....I will be even more reluctant to answer your question. ;)

[UndercoverElephant]

A question on another forum has prompted me to try to demonstrate why philosophy can do nothing but analyse language.

Let us take the apparently easy question "Can we prove that God exists?"

Most people here would just pile in and try to answer the question, but they would be wasting their time. There are no absolute definitions of "prove", "God" or "exist". There are many valid definitions of all of them, and nobody has the right to claim that theirs is the correct definition. So the only valid response to somebody asking this question is :

Please define "prove", "God" and "exist".

As soon as that person has clearly defined what these three words mean to them, then the answer to the question will become obvious. It won't be the "right" answer, but it will be the answer that makes sense according to the definitions provided by the questioner.

Thus we aren't actually getting any closer to providing any absolute answer to this question, and because of the limitations inherent in all language we never will. Alll we can do is examine peoples arguments for internal consistency according to their own definitions.

Yet at this site there is a continual stream of absolutely pointless debates caused by people trying to reach absolute answers to questions like this whilst failing to agree on how to define the words.

Take Lifegazer for example - all he does is define his own set of meanings for words, and then claim that he has "proven that......x, y, and z". He has of course proven absolutely nothing at all, not even within the context of his own definitions (since his position is internally incoherent, even according to his own definitions). But even if his position was not internally illogical, he still would not have proved anything other than that he has got an internally consistent language game going on. Thus every time he claims to "have the truth" all he is doing is staring up his own anus and claiming that this is somehow profound.

Therefore it follows that after Wittgenstein there really is nothing for philosophy to do but analyse language games, both internally and with respect to each other.

What is the likelihood that the village idiot will understand this post?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
A question on another forum has prompted me to try to demonstrate why philosophy can do nothing but analyse language.

Let us take the apparently easy question "Can we prove that God exists?"

Most people here would just pile in and try to answer the question, but they would be wasting their time. There are no absolute definitions of "prove", "God" or "exist". There are many valid definitions of all of them, and nobody has the right to claim that theirs is the correct definition. So the only valid response to somebody asking this question is :

Please define "prove", "God" and "exist".

As soon as that person has clearly defined what these three words mean to them, then the answer to the question will become obvious. It won't be the "right" answer, but it will be the answer that makes sense according to the definitions provided by the questioner.

Thus we aren't actually getting any closer to providing any absolute answer to this question, and because of the limitations inherent in all language [b]we never will. Alll we can do is examine peoples arguments for internal consistency according to their own definitions.


Very good post, Geoff. :)

This is a very good example of what Wittgenstein meant by saying that it was the end of Philosophy. The lack of agreement in the definition of words/concepts is what makes most philosophical problems never been answered.



Yet at this site there is a continual stream of absolutely pointless debates caused by people trying to reach absolute answers to questions like this whilst failing to agree on how to define the words.

The reason is because people do not understand that they are using their own language game with they interact with someone who is using a different language game, for example a materialist vs an idealist when they discuss what is "consciousness".

What is the best thing to do?, it seems that the only parameters in making an argument valid are consistency and logic (?), but doesn't this lead to another problem?, who is going to determine what is consistent and logical?.

Q-S

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Language struggles with concepts such as this. But the amazing thing is that we share a common abstract-existence. Even without definition, people understand the use of such terms because they have personal/intimate inner-experience of them themselves.

Without definitions is IMPOSSIBLE to know if we are sharing a common abstract-existence.


Experience is the barometer of understanding specific concepts - not language.
This, I feel, is highly significant when confronted with statements proclaiming the death of philosophy because of the shortcomings of language. Philosophy is founded upon the abstract experience of our awareness... an experience which is beyond explanation, perhaps... but which is certainly not beyond understanding when shared with entities of a like-mind.
"I feel hot", for example, is something probably everyone here comprehends without having a chapter of text presented before their eyes to define what I mean.

Unfortunately humans need language to communicate those experiences, that's why science has not even provided a definition of what consciousness is.

Wittgenstein said "what I know is what I have words for", nothing could summarise better than this the fact that we are limited by our language. If we all don't agree what it feels to experience pain is not because we deny its existence but because we cannot agree on the words to define and explain what it feels to experience pain.





The biggest problem facing philosophy, is not one of language, but one of bias. We all understand each other, largely. I, for example, certainly understand the materialist's point-of-view.
But we have our own philosophies founded upon opposing axioms. It is these beliefs which need to be addressed. That's why my prime concern is one of the justification of founding axioms. I.e., ridding philosophy of assumption.

I think the problems starts even before establishing the axioms. It begins in the definition of words that you need to build your frame of reference.

Q

[UndercoverElephant]

Q :


The reason is because people do not understand that they are using their own language game with they interact with someone who is using a different language game, for example a materialist vs an idealist when they discuss what is "consciousness".


Yep. Round and round they go, never getting anywhere. The problem is that neither side are willing to admit that their own language game is just a language game. Both sides INSIST that their own language game is somehow the correct or "best" one. It is NOT just the "woo-woos" who do this - Keneke spent the first half of this thread trying to claim that the language game of science was somehow "the best" - although he used terms like "most believable" and tried to argue that because it is open to modification it must be able to cope with anything that could one day be thrown at it. Many others here are just as prone to doing precisely the same thing, and none of them seem capable of recognising it. Lifegazer is by far the worst of all of them. I wish there was some way of communicating to him how truly apallingly bad his attempt at "philosophy" really is.


What is the best thing to do?, it seems that the only parameters in making an argument valid are consistency and logic (?), but doesn't this lead to another problem?, who is going to determine what is consistent and logical?.


Well, provided we can agree on what constitutes logic, anybody can.

[gentlehorse]

Originally posted by lifegazer
That's why my prime concern is one of the justification of founding axioms. I.e., ridding philosophy of assumption.

It seems to me that assumption is a must. Without it, I am left a wandering solipsist.

[Giz]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Q :


Keneke spent the first half of this thread trying to claim that the language game of science was somehow "the best" - although he used terms like "most believable" and tried to argue that because it is open to modification it must be able to cope with anything that could one day be thrown at it.

Geoff, tell me how much have the non-scientific language games increased our understanding? It seems sometimes as if sometime after 1000 BC some pre-athenian philosophers started arguing in a cave and as yet no resolution has been reached. (Perhaps it would be fair to move Philosophy from the status of Intellectual Discipline to Game, rather like crosswords or chess.)

Don't tell me it's all about the journey and not about arriving!

(That Wittgenstein dude spent all the time from his 20's till death figuring out that you have to agree that you're talking about the same thing before you can both talk about it!? Wow, how did he find the time?

[UndercoverElephant]

Hello Giz

First I need to make it clear that keneke was trying to argue that there was no limit to the usefulness of the scientific language game - i.e. that ANYTHING that could be usefully known or described could be described using that language, given enough time. My point was the scientific language game was indeed absolutely limited to its own rules and assumptions and no matter how long it was given it would never be able to cope with concepts like "qualia" .

Your question does not affect the above - it is a different question.

Originally posted by Giz
Geoff, tell me how much have the non-scientific language games increased our understanding?


A great deal. It has to be said that those of us who are scientistic can glean nothing intelligible from non-scientific language games, but that is their problem. A good example of non-scientific discourse which has increased our understanding might be the whole tradition of German Idealism. If you think that the likes of Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Heidegger and Nietschze did not increase our understanding then that is simply because you do not happen know anything about German Idealism.


It seems sometimes as if sometime after 1000 BC some pre-athenian philosophers started arguing in a cave and as yet no resolution has been reached. (Perhaps it would be fair to move Philosophy from the status of Intellectual Discipline to Game, rather like crosswords or chess.)


No "resolution"? Possibly. I would say "No means of coming to absolute agreement." But the reason why we can never agree on absolute philosophical answers is also answered by philosophy, most obviously by Hegel, who came up with the idea that every idea contained the seeds of its own negation. He claimed his philosophy represented the end of history. In the next lecture theatre, deliberately scheduling his lectures to clash with those of Hegel (and often lecturing to an empty room) was Arthur Schopenhauer, whose philosophy eventually came to be seen as the dialectical negation of Hegels own philosophy..... :)

Rather like Chess? Well, not so completely different, yes.


Don't tell me it's all about the journey and not about arriving!


Well, since I haven't quite arrived at the end of philosophy I cannot tell you that.


That Wittgenstein dude spent all the time from his 20's till death figuring out that you have to agree that you're talking about the same thing before you can both talk about it!? Wow, how did he find the time?


It's a little more complex than that....

Geoff

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Geoff said:
That isn't what I said. I probably didn't say it very clearly. The second half of Wittgensteins work was about AVOIDING the idea that there was "One True Philosophy". All there is is DIFFERENT language games. Those language games have different purposes and there is no absolute limit to their usefulness. All that is left for philosophy to do is analyse the language games.
Oh, that's different. :D Analyze away.

Therefore it follows that after Wittgenstein there really is nothing for philosophy to do but analyse language games, both internally and with respect to each other.
Did he end with a paragraph in which he wondered what was the point of this pointless exercise? Other than having fun, of course.

Yet at this site there is a continual stream of absolutely pointless debates caused by people trying to reach absolute answers to questions like this whilst failing to agree on how to define the words.
I begin to think that we're talking about different degrees of pointlessness. We must have Pointless_0 and Pointless_1.

~~ Paul

[UndercoverElephant]

Paul


Did he end with a paragraph in which he wondered what was the point of this pointless exercise? Other than having fun, of course.


Quite the reverse. He did not write any such final paragraph. He left it for others to figure out the "grand finale" for themselves. If YOU want to decide it is a pointless exercise then that is your choice. Others have chosen differently.


I begin to think that we're talking about different degrees of pointlessness. We must have Pointless_0 and Pointless_1


You are confusing "What I think is pointless." with "What is pointless".

However, this is now beyond the scope of this thread.

:)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I begin to think that we're talking about different degrees of pointlessness.

Or the difference between your use of language to convince me I'm "wrong" and you're "right", vs your use of language to convince yourself that what you express mirrors what you have faith in. :D

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, gentlemen, clearly it is the case that pointlessness is in the eye of the beholder. That is why I proposed Pointless_0 and Pointless_1. What do you think is the point of analyzing word games? I mean, beyond their entertainment value.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
What do you think is the point of analyzing word games?


Personal education & edification perhaps?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by hammegk


Or the difference between your use of language to convince me I'm "wrong" and you're "right", vs your use of language to convince yourself that what you express mirrors what you have faith in. :D

Wittgenstein would have advocating the use of language in order to "think, but without ever advocating a position yourself".

You should be eliminating those uses of language in which personal beliefs are disguised in the definitions, enabling the believer to believe it isn't actually belief.

[Giz]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Paul

You are confusing "What I think is pointless." with "What is pointless".

:)

And the game begins...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


Wittgenstein would have advocated the use of language in order to "think, but without ever advocating a position yourself".

Socratic of him I'd posit.


You should be eliminating those uses of language in which personal beliefs are disguised in the definitions, enabling the believer to believe it isn't actually belief.
Damn, I thought W said that wasn't possible, in that definitions are "personal belief". :p

Originally posted by Giz

And the game begins...
*I* disagree; it continues. ;)

And of course what *I* think is pointless, is (to me). :D

[UndercoverElephant]

Ham


Damn, I thought W said that wasn't possible, in that definitions are "personal belief".


Yes, you're probably correct. It isn't actually possible to disentangle the biases from the definitions.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Geoff said:
Wittgenstein would have advocating the use of language in order to "think, but without ever advocating a position yourself".
Wimpgenstein. :D

~~ Paul

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Let us take the apparently easy question "Can we prove that God exists?"

Most people here would just pile in and try to answer the question, but they would be wasting their time. There are no absolute definitions of "prove", "God" or "exist". There are many valid definitions of all of them, and nobody has the right to claim that theirs is the correct definition. So the only valid response to somebody asking this question is :

Please define "prove", "God" and "exist".

As soon as that person has clearly defined what these three words mean to them, then the answer to the question will become obvious. It won't be the "right" answer, but it will be the answer that makes sense according to the definitions provided by the questioner.

Thus we aren't actually getting any closer to providing any absolute answer to this question, and because of the limitations inherent in all language we never will. Alll we can do is examine peoples arguments for internal consistency according to their own definitions.

This sort of philosophy ridicules itself, thus making its own conclusions incoherent to all but Mr. W and, presumably, yourself.

It's like the axiom: There are no absolutes... which itself is an absolute.
Mr W. proceeds to declare, absolutely, that language cannot communicate absolutes. Yet he expects everyone to understand his language and agree that philosophy is dead.
By his own rules, his conclusions fail. Therefore, philosophy doth liveth.

Edit: I shall be answering those other questions in that other thread tomorrow... I have a day off, so I have no excuses. So please don't ignore what I say here, and in the proceeding posts.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

This sort of philosophy ridicules itself, thus making its own conclusions incoherent to all but Mr. W and, presumably, yourself.

It's like the axiom: There are no absolutes... which itself is an absolute.
Mr W. proceeds to declare, absolutely, that language cannot communicate absolutes. Yet he expects everyone to understand his language and agree that philosophy is dead.
By his own rules, his conclusions fail. Therefore, philosophy doth liveth.

It doesn't matter if the way you use to invalid the system is within the system. If you can show a system to be non-consistent by using that system, there is clearly a problem with that system.

[lifegazer]

I've just posted this in another thread. I must apologise for pasting it here, but it's so pertinent to my earlier point, and this thread, that I just had to:-
-------------------

Originally posted by Diogenes:
Can you please explain what ' the mind's eye ' is ?


I could not help but think of this following statement I made in another thread, yesterday, when you asked this question:-

"The languages we speak have limitations in defining abstract experience. Ask me what 'pain' is, for example, and I'll be hard pressed to define it to you in terms you'll understand if you have never experienced it for yourself.
Language struggles with concepts such as this. But the amazing thing is that we share a common abstract-existence. Even without definition, people understand the use of such terms because they have personal/intimate inner-experience of them themselves.
Experience is the barometer of understanding specific concepts - not language."

Everybody on this board knows what the mind's eye is. It refers to self-awareness and what is sensed within that awareness. It is beyond language to define it, perhaps. Yet, with the above statement in mind, it is certainly not above understanding, since we all have such an eye. You included, squire.
-------------------------

Do not forget that language is built upon the back of shared experience. Thus, to quarrel over the exact definitions of shared experiences is clearly a nonsense.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
It doesn't matter if the way you use to invalid the system is within the system. If you can show a system to be non-consistent by using that system, there is clearly a problem with that system.
Russ... if the system is flawed, then you certainly cannot use that system to create an unblemished piece of work with an absolute/universal conclusion. Particularly when your conclusion is that no absolute conclusions can be reached!

Geoffrey?

[lifegazer]

As a matter of interest, have any contemporary philosophers ever challenged Wittgenstein?

[hammegk]

Refute a tautology????

For a quick intro overview to W ---

http://www.roangelo.net/logwitt/logwitt1.html

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Russ... if the system is flawed, then you certainly cannot use that system to create an unblemished piece of work with an absolute/universal conclusion. Particularly when your conclusion is that no absolute conclusions can be reached!

Geoffrey?

so....you wish to disprove a claim that a system is flawed by saying that the system is flawed, and therefore the claim doesn't matter. Very interesting reasoning.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
so....you wish to disprove a claim that a system is flawed by saying that the system is flawed, and therefore the claim doesn't matter. Very interesting reasoning.
I don't say that the system is flawed. Mr.W does. What I have said is a retort to his own philosophy, which is incorrect by its own rules... as shown previously.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I don't say that the system is flawed. Mr.W does. What I have said is a retort to his own philosophy, which is incorrect by its own rules... as shown previously.

And what I'm saying is that if he can provide proof of flaws within philosophy, it doesn't make sense for your to discredit his work by saying that philosophy is wrong. "which is incorrect by its own rules... "

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

This sort of philosophy ridicules itself, thus making its own conclusions incoherent to all but Mr. W and, presumably, yourself.


Ah. That will be why Wittgenstein, more than any other philosopher, is considered to be the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.

You are a fool, Lifegazer. Whole University courses are dedicated to studying Wittgenstein. YOU think you can refute his philosophy in one paragraph, having read one small summary of one small part of what he said! :D

Why do you think everyone thinks you are complete idiot?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Ah. That will be why Wittgenstein, more than any other philosopher, is considered to be the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.

You are a fool, Lifegazer. Whole University courses are dedicated to studying Wittgenstein. YOU think you can refute his philosophy in one paragraph, having read one small summary of one small part of what he said! :D

I have crushed your representation of his philosophy, here.
Why do you think everyone thinks you are complete idiot?
Instead of doing your usual tango, why don't you show the readers exactly why my posts are incorrect?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
And what I'm saying is that if he can provide proof of flaws within philosophy, it doesn't make sense for your to discredit his work by saying that philosophy is wrong. "which is incorrect by its own rules... "
He (W) claimed that philosophy was incapable of communicating universal truths due to the subjectivism of language. Yet he used that language to discover and communicate these things to us, expecting us to accept the absolute truth of philosophy's death as his conclusion.

The guy loses by technical default. Exactly the same reason why "There are no absolutes" cannot be considered a valid statement.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I have crushed your representation of his philosophy, here.


Sure, Lifegazer. It lies crippled on the floor!

:dl:


Instead of doing your usual tango, why don't you show the readers exactly why my posts are incorrect?

Here's the deal, Lifegazer.

WHEN YOU HAVE ANSWERED MY NINE QUESTIONS FROM SEVERAL WEEKS AGO, WHICH I HAVE REPEATED TWENTY-FIVE TIMES, AND WHICH YOU HAVE PROMISED TO ANSWER then I might think about answering some of yours in this thread.

[UndercoverElephant]

You are unbelievable!

How can you come out with statements like "Instead of doing your usual tango" when you have FAILED TWENTY-FIVE TIMES TO ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU RECOGNISE NEED ANSWERING?????.

You are a
HYPOCRITE BEYOND DESCRIPTION

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Sure, Lifegazer. It lies crippled on the floor!

:dl:

At this moment in time, the philosophy of Wittgenstein - as presented by you - is to be considered dead.

Here's the deal, Lifegazer.

WHEN YOU HAVE ANSWERED MY NINE QUESTIONS FROM SEVERAL WEEKS AGO, WHICH I HAVE REPEATED TWENTY-FIVE TIMES, AND WHICH YOU HAVE PROMISED TO ANSWER then I might think about answering some of yours in this thread.
I shall answer those questions right now. But if you come back in here and use my discussion about 'heaven' as a response to the posts I have made here, I shall be extremely disappointed in you.

[lifegazer]

"Bump".
Ahoy Geoffrey... I'm eager to bury this philosophy of Wittgenstein.
The hole is already dug. Do you have anything to say which might save it?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer
"Bump".
Ahoy Geoffrey... I'm eager to bury this philosophy of Wittgenstein.
The hole is already dug. Do you have anything to say which might save it?

Wittgenstein was the king of logic.

We will deal with YOUR INABILITY to reason logically before we will talk about Wittgenstein. You must earn the right to demand others to answer your question, by treating others as you wish to be treated yourself. You will answer my questions first, because I asked you them A LONG TIME AGO.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The guy loses by technical default. Exactly the same reason why "There are no absolutes" cannot be considered a valid statement.

You have a very poor argument against Wittgenstein. It is quite evident your lack of knowledge about his work.
It is not worth discussing with you.

Q

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Q-Source


You have a very poor argument against Wittgenstein. It is quite evident your lack of knowledge about his work.
It is not worth discussing with you.

Q
What a pathetic response.

[lifegazer]

The silence here is so deafening that it appears to speak volumes.

"He (W) claimed that philosophy was incapable of communicating universal truths due to the subjectivism of language. Yet he used that language to discover and communicate these things to us, expecting us to accept the absolute truth of philosophy's death as his conclusion.

The guy loses by technical default. Exactly the same reason why "There are no absolutes" cannot be considered a valid statement."

Somebody please address this. I am not allowing it to be forgotten.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The silence here is so deafening that it appears to speak volumes.


Check you timezone chart


"He (W) claimed that philosophy was incapable of communicating universal truths due to the subjectivism of language. Yet he used that language to discover and communicate these things to us, expecting us to accept the absolute truth of philosophy's death as his conclusion.

The guy loses by technical default. Exactly the same reason why "There are no absolutes" cannot be considered a valid statement."

Somebody please address this. I am not allowing it to be forgotten.

I have addressed this, but your lack of critical thinking and logic skills are incredible.

Lets say I invent a new form of math, where there are different rules for multiplication (these "different" forms of math actually exist). My new form of math is working great, and it has some interesting properties that seem usefull. Then, someone comes along and uses my new form of math, and reduces an equation down to 1 = 2.

Now, will you say that his disproval of my new math is wrong, because he used my new math to communicate that to us, and that he loses by technical default?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Lets say I invent a new form of math, where there are different rules for multiplication (these "different" forms of math actually exist). My new form of math is working great, and it has some interesting properties that seem usefull. Then, someone comes along and uses my new form of math, and reduces an equation down to 1 = 2.

Now, will you say that his disproval of my new math is wrong, because he used my new math to communicate that to us, and that he loses by technical default?
This anology does not mirror the scenario.

W used language to discover that language is subjective, yet he also used language to communicate his ideas to us, expecting us to accept, universally, the absolute truth of philosophy's death, after previously saying that philosophy was incapable of conveying such truths.

W's thoughts: "Language is subjective... not to be trusted... therefore there are no universal truths!"
W's communication: "Guess what guys, language is subjective... not to be trusted... therefore there are no universal truths!"... "So guess what? As a whole, we can now accept that there are no universal truths... apart from this of course."

Clearly, the reader is in no position to either understand the conclusion or accept the absoluteness of it.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by lifegazer


W's thoughts: "Language is subjective... not to be trusted... therefore there are no universal truths!"

Or as I read him, "language" does not provide a good basis for discussing Universal Truth.

That idea had been proposed thousands of years before W (re)mentioned it.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

This anology does not mirror the scenario.


Please explain why, my new math is a new language. Someone took my language, and using it, showed that there are in essence, no universal truths that it can tell us (ie, 1 = 2).


Clearly, the reader is in no position to either understand the conclusion or accept the absoluteness of it.

So do claim to have proven that there are absolutes?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by hammegk

Or as I read him, "language" does not provide a good basis for discussing Universal Truth.

That idea had been proposed thousands of years before W (re)mentioned it.

Yes, but the relevance of Wittgenstein's work is not the fact that he re-mentioned the problem, the relevances relies on the fact that he provided the tools to disentangle the problem: there is not a unique language but different language games, using them in their own context still provide valid answers to the universal questions.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Q-Source


.... the problem: there is not a unique language but different language games, using them in their own context still provide valid answers
Yup.


to the universal questions.
Not as I understand his ideas from what I've read so far. :(

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, this thread seems to be dead now, so maybe it is time to answer Lifegazers question. He did, at the twenty-sixth time of asking, finally provide answers to the first four of my nine questions, which was enough to etablish that there would be no more eating "after the revolution". Perhaps it isn't fair to make him answer the other five, given the level of ludicrousness of the answers to the first four.

The question was "Saying it is impossible to speak of absolute truths is an absolute claim, and therefore self-refuting." or something along those lines.

In the Tractatus, Wittgenstein makes the claim that the claims made in the Tractatus are in fact nonsense. Important nonsense, but nevertheless nonsense.

:)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Geoff said:
In the Tractatus, Wittgenstein makes the claim that the claims made in the Tractatus are in fact nonsense. Important nonsense, but nevertheless nonsense.
Surely you're joking, Mr. Geoff? Was it some sort of prepostmodern tract?

~~ Paul

[gentlehorse]

Originally posted by JustGeoff

In the Tractatus, Wittgenstein makes the claim that the claims made in the Tractatus are in fact nonsense. Important nonsense, but nevertheless nonsense.

:)

Reminds me of: In the final analysis, nothing we do has any importance whatsoever. But it's very important that we do it.

Can't remember who said it--

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Surely you're joking, Mr. Geoff? Was it some sort of prepostmodern tract?

~~ Paul

No, I'm not joking, Wittgenstein really does make this claim about his own claims.

But perhaps you may recall some of our previous discussions about paradoxes. Lao Tsu makes a similar claim about Taoism - that nothing could be understood about Taoism : "The Tao that can be expressed is not the real Tao."

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/letter-taoism.html


A FAMOUS TAOIST SAYING:

"Those who know don't say, and those who say don't know."

In the sixth century B.C. Lao-tzu, the purported founder of Taoism, said (and wrote) many things about Taoism. And certainly this very famous Taoist saying has now been said. Are we therefore to understand that no one who has ever spoken for Taoism in the past (including Lao-Tzu himself), or who would ever speak for Taoism in the future, actually knows anything about Taoism or 'Taoist truth'?

"The cosmic Tao is invisible, inaudible, unnameable, undiscussible, inexpressible" (Max Mueller, Sacred Books of the East, London: Krishna Press).

If the Tao is truly inexpressible, how is it that these attributes of the Tao are then being expressed?


Sound familiar?

Wittgenstein was the master of logic. He was apparently perfectly aware that his own arguments contained the seeds of their own negation.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Well, this thread seems to be dead now, so maybe it is time to answer Lifegazers question. He did, at the twenty-sixth time of asking, finally provide answers to the first four of my nine questions, which was enough to etablish that there would be no more eating "after the revolution". Perhaps it isn't fair to make him answer the other five, given the level of ludicrousness of the answers to the first four.

How can a guy who believes what you believe (!!!) mock my beliefs pertaining to the fulfilment of days?
Why are you so secretive of your beliefs? Is it because you are ashamed of them? Or is it because there's no sense inherent within them? I see from your sheepish convo with scribble that I'm not the first one to hear the trash rattling in your skull.
What amazes me is that a crank like you would have the gall to mock my own beliefs. And since you seem intent upon harassing me, I think it's about time you laid your cards on the table and explain to these good folk what sort of a bozo you are.

The question was "Saying it is impossible to speak of absolute truths is an absolute claim, and therefore self-refuting." or something along those lines.

Something along those lines.

In the Tractatus, Wittgenstein makes the claim that the claims made in the Tractatus are in fact nonsense. Important nonsense, but nevertheless nonsense.

:)
Hello? Wittgenstein claims that his philosophy is nonsense?
Then of what relevance is that philosophy?

Imagine that after all my efforts, I turned around and said "Everything I have just said is nonsense.".
Can somebody please explain why we're talking about alot of nonsense?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by lifegazer


Imagine that after all my efforts, I turned around and said "Everything I have just said is nonsense.".


Er, yas, I expect that is too much to hope for.

Paths are funny things.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hammegk


Er, yas, I expect that is too much to hope for.

Paths are funny things.
You possess an intelligent humour squire. I do appreciate it. But you rarely have much to back it up.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You possess an intelligent humour squire. I do appreciate it. But you rarely have much to back it up.

as apposed to you, you do not have any noticable humor, and never have anything to back you assertions up.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


as apposed to you, you do not have any noticable humor, and never have anything to back you assertions up.
Perhaps you could inform the forum of the relevance of your contribution to this thread with this post.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Perhaps you could inform the forum of the relevance of your contribution to this thread with this post.

Just a little 3 way banter, hammegk makes some some banter with you, you make some banter with him, I make some banter with you, etc

[UndercoverElephant]

LG


How can a guy who believes what you believe (!!!) mock my beliefs pertaining to the fulfilment of days?


You have confused metaphor with literal truth. Like so many others before you.


Why are you so secretive of your beliefs? Is it because you are ashamed of them?


No.


Or is it because there's no sense inherent within them? I see from your sheepish convo with scribble that I'm not the first one to hear the trash rattling in your skull.What amazes me is that a crank like you would have the gall to mock my own beliefs. And since you seem intent upon harassing me, I think it's about time you laid your cards on the table and explain to these good folk what sort of a bozo you are.


I'm a nothing. I am an ant. A worm. A Nothing.


quote:


Hello? Wittgenstein claims that his philosophy is nonsense?
Then of what relevance is that philosophy?


It was important nonsense. :)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
It was important nonsense. :)
No nonsense is important, by default, except to be earmarked as irrelevant to what is important.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

How can a guy who believes what you believe (!!!) mock my beliefs pertaining to the fulfilment of days?


His personal beliefs have nothing to do with any critizisms that he has made of your claims (note, claims, not beliefs).


Why are you so secretive of your beliefs? Is it because you are ashamed of them? Or is it because there's no sense inherent within them? I see from your sheepish convo with scribble that I'm not the first one to hear the trash rattling in your skull.


Its because he understands what you do not.


What amazes me is that a crank like you would have the gall to mock my own beliefs. And since you seem intent upon harassing me, I think it's about time you laid your cards on the table and explain to these good folk what sort of a bozo you are.


oh yes, how *dare* someone question your beliefs. Sounds like the mid-evil catholic church to me.


Hello? Wittgenstein claims that his philosophy is nonsense?
Then of what relevance is that philosophy?


Because he shows that philosophy is non-sense, he must admit that his previous work in that area is non-sense. However, learning from non-sense is very important, so we can understand the thinking process and where we are today much better. This is why a study of the ancient philosophers, who ended up being wrong about so many things, is so important.


Imagine that after all my efforts, I turned around and said "Everything I have just said is nonsense.".


He did not say "Everything I have just said is nonsense". He said this stuff I did back here, was non-sense. What's wrong with looking at what you did in the past and realizing it was a mistake?


Can somebody please explain why we're talking about alot of nonsense?

The main point of this thread is his points on philosophy in general, not his previous musings, which he later considered to be nonsense.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

No nonsense is important, by default, except to be earmarked as irrelevant to what is important.

Well, I suppose by your standards, since you do not want to open your mind to new (to you) and different ideas. However, most of us enjoy learning about ancient philosophers, scientists and experiments of old, etc. Just because these people had the wrong idea about some (if not many) things doesn't mean that they didn't have anything important to say, and most importantly, they can be learned from.

[lifegazer]

Russ, it's a good job that I like you or I'd rip you to bits for this evening's posts to me. Thank your lucky stars that I'm just going to take your popcorn off you.
Originally posted by RussDill
His personal beliefs have nothing to do with any critizisms that he has made of your claims (note, claims, not beliefs).

In this case, you are wrong. Believe me, Geoff's claims make mine look sensible - even in a skeptic's forum. He hasn't even got that gall to discuss them they're so crazy.

oh yes, how *dare* someone question your beliefs. Sounds like the mid-evil catholic church to me.

There's been private discussions between me & Geoff that you know nothing about. Believe me, my objections to him were legitimate. If he has the balls to lay down his cards, you'll see what I mean.

Lg: "Hello? Wittgenstein claims that his philosophy is nonsense?
Then of what relevance is that philosophy?"

Because he shows that philosophy is non-sense, he must admit that his previous work in that area is non-sense. However, learning from non-sense is very important, so we can understand the thinking process and where we are today much better. This is why a study of the ancient philosophers, who ended up being wrong about so many things, is so important.

I'm going to pretend that you're having a bad day Russ. Think about what this thread is about and think about how this conclusion has been derived:-

Mr W has used language in his mind to discover that language is
faulty. He has then concluded that no conclusions can ever be considered as absolutely true due to the subjective-nature of all languages. He has then sought to communicate this absolute truth, with subjective language, to us... so that it may be universally accepted.
As if that wasn't enough, Geoff now says that everything he claimed was admitted to be nonsense. So, we should throw his stuff in the bin. It's useless. Seriously!

How can any nonsensical statement be of any relevance to anything? How can Wittgenstein have "ended philosophy"?!

He did not say "Everything I have just said is nonsense". He said this stuff I did back here, was non-sense. What's wrong with looking at what you did in the past and realizing it was a mistake?

Wake up Russ.

Wittgenstein's philosophy is kaput.
10th January, 2004.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This evening I bought a copy of Tractatus. I shall endeavor to read it sometime.

~~ Paul

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Language-games exist as subsets of languages.


Those subsets have overlapping interests.

THE REASON IS THAT YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON IN MY MIND AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON IN YOURS?

One cannot read without misreading. :) Each individual's use of any "language-game" is different from any other person's use; for the same reason the experience of RED cannot be said to be the same for any two people. Extend this even further: Each individual's use of any "language-game" at any point in time is different from the "same" person's use of the same "language-game" any another point in time. And if you accept the idea that cognition has "parts", then we can even say that: Any person's use of any language game at any point in time, differs from other aspects of that person's simultaneous cognition of the language-game.

But then, does time actually have "points"? :)


It isn't me who is trying to restrict us to one framework only! People who are "scientistic" do this. Biblical literalists do this. I am a Post-Modernist for heavens sake! Use as many frameworks as you like, just don't mix them up arbitrarily and claim to be making any sense! :)


Mixed metaphors cannot bridge different conceptualizations?


It occurs to me that you are trying to use my assertion that "There is no absolute truth" to counter with "Then it's not absolutely true that there is no absolute truth."

If so, my response is :

:rolleyes:

An error of logical types, I think. A class cannot be a member of itself, nor can a member of a class be the class. But then, "absolute truth" is extremely vague.

All human language games are limited and no human language game can accomplish a transference of direct subjective experience.

What is your definition of transference, for this specific case? Would a slightly different definition be a more useful one? (Useful for what? Useful how?)

All we have to do is re-issue the life works of Karl Marx with "Oh, and by the way you are all One" on the inner sleeve, and all the problems will go away!!!!

Well, the problem wasn't that nobody understood this principle, just that very few did. :)

Once you have understood how the language-games are related then all the other problems on philosophy resolve themselves automatically. In other words, do not bother with ontology at all, just sort out your own sloppy and confused usage of language and the answers will present themselves on a plate.

Many philosophers disagree that it's that simple. Sure it works well for some questions: If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody to hear it, does it make a sound? Well, if you differentiate sound waves from human auditory stimulus, the answer is easy. But not all questions are that easy.

Wittgenstein said "what I know is what I have words for".

BUT:

"The Tao that can be expressed is not the real Tao."

So, if Wittgenstein said that, he was mistaken. Tacit knowledge is often not communicated in words, but in actions.

The problem is that neither side are willing to admit that their own language game is just a language game.

Perhaps someone needs to make a meta-comment to that effect? Oh, look, you just did. :) But then how do you define "language" and "game"; and define those terms in terms of my own language-game so that I can fully understand them?

You should be eliminating those uses of language in which personal beliefs are disguised in the definitions, enabling the believer to believe it isn't actually belief.

Pull out all of the presuppositions? Won't you end up with nonsense?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Russ, it's a good job that I like you or I'd rip you to bits for this evening's posts to me.


Don't bother holding back.


Thank your lucky stars that I'm just going to take your popcorn off you.


um, ya, we were all hanging out in the ivory tower, trying to throw popcorn at eachother, and catch it in our mouths. The new popcorn machine rules.


In this case, you are wrong. Believe me, Geoff's claims make mine look sensible - even in a skeptic's forum. He hasn't even got that gall to discuss them they're so crazy.


Its sensless to point to other ideas that are unrelated to yours and claim they give any validity for your own. Your ideas must stand on their own. I really don't care what Geoff thinks might be the case for reality, some things are very difficult to prove.

You however, claim to have proof, and often use your misunderstanding of science to support it. That is something that can, and should be proofread by your peers. If you claim to have proof, then we should all nitpick it. And if we have a problem, we'll present it to you. You however, take great offence to peer review, and instead insult your reviewers and insist that tehy should all believe you, and you have the only truth, blah blah blah.


There's been private discussions between me & Geoff that you know nothing about. Believe me, my objections to him were legitimate. If he has the balls to lay down his cards, you'll see what I mean.


Really, I think he has state here that he doesn't have a proof (yet at least). So what is there to discuss? I'm sure he'd be more than happy to discuss it on a philosophy forum, and he seems like he might be open to discussing it with you privately. You seem to be comparing apples and oranges here. On one case, you have someone who claims proof, on the other, you have someone who has a philosophy.


I'm going to pretend that you're having a bad day Russ.


Too bad, I had a great day, and add to that, the weather could *not* be any better.

http://www.weather.com/weather/local/85048


Think about what this thread is about and think about how this conclusion has been derived:-


Yes, I've thought about it a great deal.


Mr W has used language in his mind to discover that language is
faulty. He has then concluded that no conclusions can ever be considered as absolutely true due to the subjective-nature of all languages. He has then sought to communicate this absolute truth, with subjective language, to us... so that it may be universally accepted.


One of the best ways to show a system is inconsistent, is from within. If you find inconsistent results working in a system, and you can show that you reached this results by following the rules of the system excactly, then you have shown the system to be inconsisent. You proof showing the system to be inconsistent uses the rules of the system, just like Mr W. Do you think that the above method is an invalid method for showing a system inconsisent? What would you suggest such a result means then?


As if that wasn't enough, Geoff now says that everything he claimed was admitted to be nonsense. So, we should throw his stuff in the bin. It's useless. Seriously!


No...you need to listen more closely. His previous work with philosophy was nonsense.


How can any nonsensical statement be of any relevance to anything? How can Wittgenstein have "ended philosophy"?!


nonsensical statements, if made by following the rules of a system, show that system to be inconsistent, since it makes nonsensical statements. The same type of methods are used for particle theories, you try to get the math and theory to make nonsensical statements.


Wake up Russ.


Um, quite an argument you got going there, I'm blown away, good thing you were holding back, or I might get a "Wake up and smell the coffee Russ", which would have knocked me flat on my ass.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
This evening I bought a copy of Tractatus. I shall endeavor to read it sometime.

~~ Paul

As long as you aren't expecting it to be an enjoyable read...... :D

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Too bad, I had a great day, and add to that, the weather could *not* be any better.

http://www.weather.com/weather/local/85048

I'm envious of course. But I wouldn't like to be there in the summer.

One of the best ways to show a system is inconsistent, is from within. If you find inconsistent results working in a system, and you can show that you reached this results by following the rules of the system excactly, then you have shown the system to be inconsisent. You proof showing the system to be inconsistent uses the rules of the system, just like Mr W. Do you think that the above method is an invalid method for showing a system inconsisent? What would you suggest such a result means then?

Whatever conclusions Mr W imposes upon philosophy are imposed upon his own philosophy, by default.
So, no universal/absolute truths are either conveyable or acceptable via Mr W's philosophy.
Somehow, he overlooks this in the expression of his philosophy, as he tries to convey - using language, which he more-or-less denounces - a universal philosophy to the masses: Namely, that language is a useless method to convey absolutes and that no absolutes are acceptable. Yet, via his use of language, we are asked to accept his conclusions, en masse!!

Furthermore, we now have Geoffrey indicating the fact that Mr W recognised the nonsensicality of his own philosophy (specifically, the philosophy being discussed here). So, can somebody please explain the value of a book full of nonsense? Can somebody please explain the value of his conclusions if the book is all nonsense? Can somebody explain why we still have this book upon our shelves?

As I see it, this specific philosophy (of Mr W) is useless. And, contrary to the title of this thread, I would like to say that Mr W did not bring about the demise of philosophy. Rather, philosophy has brought about the demise of Mr W.
Reason has no use for a book full of nonsense, nor for a book which has self-refuting conclusions.
R.I.P. Mr W.
R.I.P. Geoffrey's beliefs.

[UndercoverElephant]

Suggestologist.


Those subsets have overlapping interests.


Yes, and it is possible to get coherent matches at the overlaps, but it is always going to be subjective exactly how and where.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE REASON IS THAT YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON IN MY MIND AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON IN YOURS?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One cannot read without misreading.


You may have missed what I was responding to. Lifegazer claimed there was no reasons why we could not be sharing the same internal reality. He can't read my mind therefore the the claim is false.


But then, does time actually have "points"?


My own opinion? No. One continual "point" called "now".


Mixed metaphors cannot bridge different conceptualizations?


Possibly. But more often than not when people mix up language games the result is nonsense.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All human language games are limited and no human language game can accomplish a transference of direct subjective experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is your definition of transference, for this specific case? Would a slightly different definition be a more useful one? (Useful for what? Useful how?)


Transference = "getting from one mind into another mind".

Apart from that I don't really know where you are aiming with this one. Perhaps its just the shock of somebody actually doing some philosophy.... :eek:


Many philosophers disagree that it's that simple.


Including me.


Tacit knowledge is often not communicated in words, but in actions.


Well, I'd also say that context is vital.

But I'm neither a fan of nor an expert on Witggenstein.

Geoff

:)

[lifegazer]

A FAMOUS TAOIST SAYING:

"Those who know don't say, and those who say don't know."

In the sixth century B.C. Lao-tzu, the purported founder of Taoism, said (and wrote) many things about Taoism. And certainly this very famous Taoist saying has now been said. Are we therefore to understand that no one who has ever spoken for Taoism in the past (including Lao-Tzu himself), or who would ever speak for Taoism in the future, actually knows anything about Taoism or 'Taoist truth'?

"The cosmic Tao is invisible, inaudible, unnameable, undiscussible, inexpressible" (Max Mueller, Sacred Books of the East, London: Krishna Press).

If the Tao is truly inexpressible, how is it that these attributes of the Tao are then being expressed?
-----------------------------------

Clearly, more fuel for the pyre we are having today.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
But I'm neither a fan of nor an expert on Witggenstein.

Geoff

:)
"It's been a long time since I posted any theoretical metaphysics here, and when I did do so it was at a time when I had failed to understand the relevance of Wittgenstein. I would not do it now."
[Geoff, page 1]

"A question on another forum has prompted me to try to demonstrate why philosophy can do nothing but analyse language." [Geoff, page 3]

"Therefore it follows that after Wittgenstein there really is nothing for philosophy to do but analyse language games, both internally and with respect to each other." [Geoff, page 3]

"Wittgenstein was the king of logic." [Geoff, page 3]

Wittgenstein is the basis of your unknowing philosophy. That and your love for Tao.
It's all burning Geoffrey. Your beliefs have dissipated in the wind.


"Whatever conclusions Mr W imposes upon philosophy are imposed upon his own philosophy, by default.
So, no universal/absolute truths are either conveyable or acceptable via Mr W's philosophy.
Somehow, he overlooks this in the expression of his philosophy, as he tries to convey - using language, which he more-or-less denounces - a universal philosophy to the masses: Namely, that language is a useless method to convey absolutes and that no absolutes are acceptable. Yet, via his use of language, we are asked to accept his conclusions, en masse!!

Furthermore, we now have Geoffrey indicating the fact that Mr W recognised the nonsensicality of his own philosophy (specifically, the philosophy being discussed here). So, can somebody please explain the value of a book full of nonsense? Can somebody please explain the value of his conclusions if the book is all nonsense? Can somebody explain why we still have this book upon our shelves?

As I see it, this specific philosophy (of Mr W) is useless. And, contrary to the title of this thread, I would like to say that Mr W did not bring about the demise of philosophy. Rather, philosophy has brought about the demise of Mr W.
Reason has no use for a book full of nonsense, nor for a book which has self-refuting conclusions.
R.I.P. Mr W.
R.I.P. Geoffrey's beliefs."

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Suggestologist.

You may have missed what I was responding to. Lifegazer claimed there was no reasons why we could not be sharing the same internal reality. He can't read my mind therefore the the claim is false.


It may be the difference between a definition and a demonstration of "One cannot read without misreading."


Transference = "getting from one mind into another mind".

Apart from that I don't really know where you are aiming with this one. Perhaps its just the shock of somebody actually doing some philosophy.... :eek:

How is it that it gets there? What is it that gets there? Memes replicate. And they seem to replicate with decent fidelity. And memes can be nonverbal.


Well, I'd also say that context is vital.

But I'm neither a fan of nor an expert on Witggenstein.

Geoff

:)

I'm a fan of Derrida. And of cybernetics. :)

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

Memes replicate. And they seem to replicate with decent fidelity. And memes can be nonverbal.


This is true, but I'm getting no closer to actually sharing Lifegazers internal reality, thankfully.


I'm a fan of Derrida. And of cybernetics.


I haven't read any Derrida. I like Richard Rorty myself.

Also I work as a software engineer doing simulation and AI and stuff, although I am about to go and do a degree in Cognitive Science and Philosophy.

:)

[lifegazer]

So Geoff, are you just going to pretend that your belief system is still intact, or what? Because that's what the silence seems to imply. And if that is the case, then your credibility here isn't worth a dime.

You've made some pretty bold claims - not just in this thread either. Also, you've hounded me for weeks and weeks.
So this is it Geoffrey. Your philosophy stands accused of nonsensicality. In fact, it's up in smoke as far as I'm concerned.

As a philosopher and as a constant critic (of mine), your credibility is looking somewhat tarnished this evening. You owe me a public concession. Why don't you show the members here that "being a grown up" comes easy for you and do the right thing?

[UndercoverElephant]

:wink8:

[lifegazer]

You have to face this like a man Geoff or the inner-demons shall have you.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Whatever conclusions Mr W imposes upon philosophy are imposed upon his own philosophy, by default.
So, no universal/absolute truths are either conveyable or acceptable via Mr W's philosophy.
Somehow, he overlooks this in the expression of his philosophy, as he tries to convey - using language, which he more-or-less denounces - a universal philosophy to the masses: Namely, that language is a useless method to convey absolutes and that no absolutes are acceptable. Yet, via his use of language, we are asked to accept his conclusions, en masse!!


I've explained this above, but, instead of bothering to address the argument, you've reposted your assumptions. In fact, your reply is so generic, you've copied and pasted it for Geoff. If you've decided you don't want to be part of the discussion, don't bother posting, otherwise, read the post again, and respond to the argument.


Furthermore, we now have Geoffrey indicating the fact that Mr W recognised the nonsensicality of his own philosophy (specifically, the philosophy being discussed here). So, can somebody please explain the value of a book full of nonsense? Can somebody please explain the value of his conclusions if the book is all nonsense? Can somebody explain why we still have this book upon our shelves?


I already did, if you'd like to be part of the discussion, respond to the argument.


As I see it, this specific philosophy (of Mr W) is useless. And, contrary to the title of this thread, I would like to say that Mr W did not bring about the demise of philosophy. Rather, philosophy has brought about the demise of Mr W.


You'll have to show that, unless of course, you've given up, and now you are just repeating your assumptions over and over and claiming victory.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
So Geoff, are you just going to pretend that your belief system is still intact, or what? Because that's what the silence seems to imply. And if that is the case, then your credibility here isn't worth a dime.


First, this thread isn't about Geoff's belief's. Second, you are the one claiming to have proof, not him.


You've made some pretty bold claims - not just in this thread either. Also, you've hounded me for weeks and weeks.


His "bold" claims are that you might be wrong. Sounds like a pretty sane claim to me.


So this is it Geoffrey. Your philosophy stands accused of nonsensicality. In fact, it's up in smoke as far as I'm concerned.


Its pointless to argue a different philosophy with you because instead of attempting to analyze its merits, you'll just compare it to your own unproven philosophy, see it doesn't match, and call the other philosophy crap.


As a philosopher and as a constant critic (of mine), your credibility is looking somewhat tarnished this evening. You owe me a public concession. Why don't you show the members here that "being a grown up" comes easy for you and do the right thing?

Geoff seem to me to be be pretty credible. Course, from your POV, I guess anyone questioning your philosophy has no credibility.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
A FAMOUS TAOIST SAYING:

"Those who know don't say, and those who say don't know."

In the sixth century B.C. Lao-tzu, the purported founder of Taoism, said (and wrote) many things about Taoism. And certainly this very famous Taoist saying has now been said. Are we therefore to understand that no one who has ever spoken for Taoism in the past (including Lao-Tzu himself), or who would ever speak for Taoism in the future, actually knows anything about Taoism or 'Taoist truth'?

"The cosmic Tao is invisible, inaudible, unnameable, undiscussible, inexpressible" (Max Mueller, Sacred Books of the East, London: Krishna Press).

If the Tao is truly inexpressible, how is it that these attributes of the Tao are then being expressed?
-----------------------------------

Clearly, more fuel for the pyre we are having today.


Hawe you ever read the Tao? Did you know that it was (supposively) not written voluntarity?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill



Hawe you ever read the Tao? Did you know that it was (supposively) not written voluntarity?
No I haven't read it; but my comments were directed at that specific (well-known) statement.
What do you mean it was written involuntarily?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

No I haven't read it; but my comments were directed at that specific (well-known) statement.
What do you mean it was written involuntarily?

Read it. He had not intention of ever writing it, because those who know, do not say. However, he was told that he could not leave a particular country if he did not write it (iirc).

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You have to face this like a man Geoff or the inner-demons shall have you.

:s2:

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


:s2:
That's very funny Geoffrey. But after the laughs, the inner-demons shall have you. Where to now Geoff mate? Shattered philosophies can be quite disconcerting.
If the going gets tough, gimme a call. I'm always willing to help a brother in need. Especially you.
But believe me, you'd feel a helluva lot better by being honest and making that concession I spoke of. Don't let your ego stop you Geoff. Let go and start afresh.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

That's very funny Geoffrey. But after the laughs, the inner-demons shall have you. Where to now Geoff mate? Shattered philosophies can be quite disconcerting.
If the going gets tough, gimme a call. I'm always willing to help a brother in need. Especially you.
But believe me, you'd feel a helluva lot better by being honest and making that concession I spoke of. Don't let your ego stop you Geoff. Let go and start afresh.

? Everything I've seen indicates that you are the one here in need of concession. The most important critic of your philosophy, the one that should question it the most, has gone on a break, a power trip, something. That person is you.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


? Everything I've seen indicates that you are the one here in need of concession. The most important critic of your philosophy, the one that should question it the most, has gone on a break, a power trip, something. That person is you.
Of course Russ. Do you really think I would lie to myself or not start afresh if somebody was to show me that God is existence is not the truth?
You misjudge me.

Anyway, don't give Geoff a tree to hide behind. This is probably his last chance.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Of course Russ. Do you really think I would lie to myself or not start afresh if somebody was to show me that God is existence is not the truth?
You misjudge me.


You completely missed what I said. You are the one who is the most important person when it comes to questioning your thoughts and conclusions. Without that, anyone can make any objections to your conclusions or reasoning and it will go in one ear, and out that other.


Anyway, don't give Geoff a tree to hide behind. This is probably his last chance.

He has no need for hiding, he is not attempting to present a proof.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
He has no need for hiding, he is not attempting to present a proof.
Have you been reading this thread, throughout?
Geoff agrees with Wittgenstein, which is why Geoff is into Taoism, amongst other things. Moreover, this is the basis of his assault upon my pursuit of absolutes. Much of the reason for Geoff's indifference towards my philosophy stems directly from Wittgenstein. Read the few quotes (by Geoff) I provided earlier today, from this very thread, which clearly highlight the importance he gives to Wittgenstein and his conclusion pertaining to the death of philosophy.

I tell you Russ that what I have said within this thread is extremely important. Important to the future of philosophy and important to Geoff's belief-system and important to the future-development of conversations within this forum. I cannot let it go with feeble jokes and/or silence. And I won't. Geoff shall have to face the music or limp away into the mist.

[Zero]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Have you been reading this thread, throughout?
Geoff agrees with Wittgenstein, which is why Geoff is into Taoism, amongst other things. Moreover, this is the basis of his assault upon my pursuit of absolutes. Much of the reason for Geoff's indifference towards my philosophy stems directly from Wittgenstein. Read the few quotes (by Geoff) I provided earlier today, from this very thread, which clearly highlight the importance he gives to Wittgenstein and his conclusion pertaining to the death of philosophy.

I tell you Russ that what I have said within this thread is extremely important. Important to the future of philosophy and important to Geoff's belief-system and important to the future-development of conversations within this forum. I cannot let it go with feeble jokes and/or silence. And I won't. Geoff shall have to face the music or limp away into the mist. None of this makes you any less wrong, did you know that?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Zero
None of this makes you any less wrong, did you know that?
What do you mean, exactly? I wish you'd put more details in your posts.

[Zero]

Originally posted by lifegazer

What do you mean, exactly? I wish you'd put more details in your posts. Well, I could say something deep-sounding and meaningless, like "If you were at Unity, you would understand the genius of brevity, thou knowest not doth knave something or other"

I thought my point was clear: even if you are right in this thread about Geoff being wrong, that doesn't in any way make you right.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, I could say something deep-sounding and meaningless, like "If you were at Unity, you would understand the genius of brevity, thou knowest not doth knave something or other"

I thought my point was clear: even if you are right in this thread about Geoff being wrong, that doesn't in any way make you right.
I'll take that as an approval of what I have said in here.

[Zero]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I'll take that as an approval of what I have said in here. You shouldn't, because I didn't say that, you goof! I was just saying that your method is wrong, no matter what the outcome of this thread. I know you hope for a knockout punch here, something like "If I can prove Geoff wrong on a single point, I can ignore everything he has to say on every subject, and I can continue to pretend that I'm smart" It doesn't work that way, of course.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Have you been reading this thread, throughout?


yes, why?


Geoff agrees with Wittgenstein, which is why Geoff is into Taoism, amongst other things. Moreover, this is the basis of his assault upon my pursuit of absolutes.


actually, this entire thread seems more like a corallary to me.


I tell you Russ that what I have said within this thread is extremely important. Important to the future of philosophy and important to Geoff's belief-system and important to the future-development of conversations within this forum. I cannot let it go with feeble jokes and/or silence. And I won't. Geoff shall have to face the music or limp away into the mist.

ok, then participate. Since you continue to ignore the argument at hand, and instead just claim victory, I'll repost it for you
One of the best ways to show a system is inconsistent, is from within. If you find inconsistent results working in a system, and you can show that you reached this results by following the rules of the system excactly, then you have shown the system to be inconsisent. You proof showing the system to be inconsistent uses the rules of the system, just like Mr W. Do you think that the above method is an invalid method for showing a system inconsisent? What would you suggest such a result means then?

nonsensical statements, if made by following the rules of a system, show that system to be inconsistent, since it makes nonsensical statements. The same type of methods are used for particle theories, you try to get the math and theory to make nonsensical statements.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I'll take that as an approval of what I have said in here.

You are an expert at lying to yourself, I'll have to give you that.

[Zero]

Originally posted by RussDill


You are an expert at lying to yourself, I'll have to give you that. Well, he has been doing it for 2 years, 3 months. You would think he would be good at it, no?:p

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer


I tell you Russ that what I have said within this thread is extremely important. Important to the future of philosophy and important to Geoff's belief-system and important to the future-development of conversations within this forum. I cannot let it go with feeble jokes and/or silence. And I won't. Geoff shall have to face the music or limp away into the mist.

:arrow:

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by lifegazer
W used language to discover that language is subjective, yet he also used language to communicate his ideas to us, expecting us to accept, universally, the absolute truth of philosophy's death, after previously saying that philosophy was incapable of conveying such truths.

W's thoughts: "Language is subjective... not to be trusted... therefore there are no universal truths!"
W's communication: "Guess what guys, language is subjective... not to be trusted... therefore there are no universal truths!"... "So guess what? As a whole, we can now accept that there are no universal truths... apart from this of course."



You don't even know the basics of W's philosophy. He never said that language was subjective, he only highlighted the limitations of language to reach absolute answers to universal questions, such as what is God, what is knowledge, what is mind, etc.

These limitations do not imply that certain answers are false or subjective. Consider the case of Science. Science uses a specific language game that is objective to investigate and provide answers to how nature and humans behave.


Furthermore, we now have Geoffrey indicating the fact that Mr W recognised the nonsensicality of his own philosophy (specifically, the philosophy being discussed here). So, can somebody please explain the value of a book full of nonsense? Can somebody please explain the value of his conclusions if the book is all nonsense? Can somebody explain why we still have this book upon our shelves?

Why don't you read the basics about Wittgenstein and stop embarrasing yourself? :rolleyes:

W. recognised the mistake he did in the Tractatus, that is true. The Tractatus was the first major work he did in his twenties and he was following the line of logical positivism. Later in his life he wrote Philosophical Investigations, there he says that Philosophy is dead as a source of knowledge because it is only a tool to understand the different language games that people use. In this thread we are discussing the contribution of the Philosophical investigations, not the Tractatus.
All the arguments supporting W. still hold.

Q-S

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Have you been reading this thread, throughout?
Geoff agrees with Wittgenstein, which is why Geoff is into Taoism, amongst other things. Moreover, this is the basis of his assault upon my pursuit of absolutes. Much of the reason for Geoff's indifference towards my philosophy stems directly from Wittgenstein. Read the few quotes (by Geoff) I provided earlier today, from this very thread, which clearly highlight the importance he gives to Wittgenstein and his conclusion pertaining to the death of philosophy.

Well I was quite happy to keep smiling through the remainder of this thread but Q has convinced me to respond.

Not many people out there are ever accused of being equally influenced by Wittgenstein and Lao Tsu. Wittgenstein is without question the pinnacle of Western analytical philosophy. Lao Tsu is arguably the originator of the most simple, beautiful and pure form of Eastern mystical philosophy. If Lifegazer wants to rant at me for my "Love of the Tao" and tell me my mind has been confused by both Lao Tsu and Wittgenstein, to be perfectly honest I find it very difficult indeed to get insulted by it! It is about the greatest philosophical compliment anybody has ever paid me! Oh that one day I could truly produce a synthesis of the great works of these two men! Unfortunately Lifegazers unwitting compliment is the result of him having absolutely no understanding of the philosophies of either Lao Tsu or Ludwig Wittgenstein, and also having precious little understanding of my own. In fact, as we have all seen, Lifegazers philosophical understanding reaches as far as "I'm completely right, everybody else is wrong where-ever they disagree with me." and no further.

As for this :


So, can somebody please explain the value of a book full of nonsense? Can somebody please explain the value of his conclusions if the book is all nonsense? Can somebody explain why we still have this book upon our shelves?


Well, that's for you to figure out, isn't it Lifegazer?

The fact of the matter is that Wittgenstein is arguably the most important philosopher that all philosophy students currently study. Whole courses are devoted to his work. By contrast, Lifegazer has been reduced to the "Flame War" section of a skeptics forum where almost no noticeable philosophy gets discussed, and even there he has managed to convert a grand total of zero people to believing "his philosophy".

Yet he asks us "Why is Wittgenstein still on our shelves when Wittgenstein has admitted that even his own words are nonsense?"

Which is exactly the same as the ChristianAnswers "Open letter to Taoists" asking how anyone could know about Taoism if the Tao that can be expressed is not the Eternal Tao?

Yet the Tao Te Ching remains even more widely studied than the "Tractatus".

Tough little question, isn't it? ;)

Why are these books still on our shelves while Lifegazer goes round and round and round claiming to have the truth and nobody takes a blind bit of notice of anything he says?

He who knows does not say. He who says does not know.

[UndercoverElephant]

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/tractatus/themes.html


Say/show distinction - Throughout the Tractatus, Wittgenstein draws a sharp line between things that can be said and things that can be shown. Anything that can be said can be expressed as a proposition with a sense, and propositions with sense concern only facts about things in the world. Anything that does not concern facts about the world cannot be said, but can at best be shown. Among the many things that we cannot say are propositions concerning ethics, aesthetics, the meaning of life, the immortality of the soul, the nature of language, the nature of logic, the nature of mathematics, and the fundamental structure of the world. Many of these things show themselves in the ways we can and cannot talk about the world, and the ways in which our discourse is structured. The distinction between saying and showing effectively sweeps away what had hitherto been thought of as philosophy. What philosophers try to say, Wittgenstein argues, cannot be said, and is therefore nonsense.

The role of philosophy - The Tractatus can be read as fundamentally concerned with the question of what philosophy is and what it is meant to do. Wittgenstein criticizes attempts to voice metaphysical and ethical ideas as being misguided attempts to say the unsayable. Philosophy is not a body of knowledge analogous to other sciences. We cannot talk about metaphysics and ethics as being "branches of philosophy" in the same way that we can talk about dynamics and electro-magnetism as being "branches of physics." While dynamics and electro-magnetism deal only with a specific aspect of reality, the concerns of philosophy touch on all aspects of life. We cannot talk about life as a limited whole, so we cannot voice the concerns of philosophy. Rather, Wittgenstein argues, we should view philosophy as a kind of clarifying activity. Since philosophy cannot step outside the boundaries of language, it should act as a watchdog at those boundaries, clarifying vague propositions and showing those who try to make philosophical claims that they have in fact spoken nothing but nonsense.

The Tractatus as nonsense - In the penultimate proposition of the Tractatus, Wittgenstein tells us that if we have understood him, we will understand that the propositions of the Tractatus are nonsense. We will view them as a ladder that, having climbed, we can now safely throw away. These remarks have generated a great deal of controversy as to how they are to be interpreted. Effectively, Wittgenstein is asking us to reconsider everything that we have just read. We can no longer straightforwardly accept take the world is all that is the case or that the world is the totality of facts, not of things. We now have to see these claims as subversive pieces of nonsense, leading us toward a proper understanding of logic, language, and the world.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Q-Source
You don't even know the basics of W's philosophy. He never said that language was subjective, he only highlighted the limitations of language to reach absolute answers to universal questions, such as what is God, what is knowledge, what is mind, etc.

One cannot use language to reach absolute statements about God?
Yet can you not see that such an assertion is a usage of language which makes an absolute-conclusion in reference to God?

Wittgenstein's philosophy digs its own grave and then jumps in it as it tries to express its conclusions.

I expressed my feelings upon the subject earlier yet was ignored.
"Experience is the barometer of understanding specific concepts - not language." [page 2]

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
He who knows does not say. He who says does not know.
Then he who wrote/said this, did not know. And no literature should exist from he that knows, since he wouldn't have said anything if he had have known.

It's a farce. It's a nonsense. Somebody suggested that the guy who wrote this was forced to do so. Well that's a joke too. For he who knows should also know that he is forced to do nothing.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

One cannot use language to reach absolute statements about God?
Yet can you not see that such an assertion is a usage of language which makes an absolute-conclusion in reference to God?


He would be making an absolute statement about language, not god.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

It's a farce. It's a nonsense. Somebody suggested that the guy who wrote this was forced to do so. Well that's a joke too. For he who knows should also know that he is forced to do nothing.

Umm...right, you are using a different definition of "forced" here. Maybe the definition of force will help here:

To constrain to do or to forbear, by the exertion of a power not resistible; to compel by physical, moral, or intellectual means; to coerce; as, masters force slaves to labor.

Perhaps the statement "he was compeled by physical and intellectual means" would be a little more agreeable to you. I'm not sure where you pulled out "For he who knows should also know that he is forced to do nothing." from, but it certainly makes no sense to me. By your definition, "forced" becomes a completely useless word when talking about the behavior of people.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


He would be making an absolute statement about language, not god.
The call was that language cannot make absolute claims about entities or concepts such as God. That was the call.

Yet, making that call is an absolute claim in itself, in reference to that concept or entity.
So, it's clear to see that such statements always dig their own graves.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The call was that language cannot make absolute claims about entities or concepts such as God. That was the call.

Yet, making that call is an absolute claim in itself, in reference to that concept or entity.
So, it's clear to see that such statements always dig their own graves.

Ok Lifegazer, what is the subject of the claim, god, or language? It would help here to write down the sentance, and the identify the subject of the sentance. Then, for comparison, make a claim about god, write out the sentance, and then identify the subject of that sentance.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Then he who wrote/said this, did not know. And no literature should exist from he that knows, since he wouldn't have said anything if he had have known.

It's a farce. It's a nonsense. Somebody suggested that the guy who wrote this was forced to do so. Well that's a joke too. For he who knows should also know that he is forced to do nothing.

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.

Under Heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness.
All can know good as good only because there is evil.
Therefore having and not having arise together.
Difficult and easy complement each other.
Long and short contrast with each other;
High and low rest upon each other;
Voice and sound harmonise each other;
Front and back follow one another.
Therefore the sage goes about doing nothing, teaching no talking.
The ten thousand things rise and fall without cease, creating, yet not possessing, working, yet not taking credit, work is done, then forgotten.
Therefore it lasts for ever.

-------------------------------------------------

[UndercoverElephant]

An alternative translation of part of the second verse :

That which a person knows he has
is known to him by that which he does not have,
and that which he considers difficult
seems so because of that which he can do with ease.
One thing seems long by comparison with that
which is, comparatively, short.
One thing is high because another thing is low;
only when sound ceases is quietness known,
and that which leads
is seen to lead only by being followed.
In comparison, the sage,
in harmony with the Tao,
needs no comparisons,
and when he makes them, knows
that comparisons are judgements,
and just as relative to he who makes them,
and to the situation,
as they are to that on which
the judgement has been made.

[lifegazer]

"He who knows does not say. He who says does not know."

Geoff. Are you going to explain-away the contradiction, for the reader? It's quite important that you do.

[hammegk]

The difference here between subtlety & stupidity is getting tough to call .... :(

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Say/show distinction
[...] Wittgenstein is asking us to reconsider everything that we have just read. We can no longer straightforwardly accept take the world is all that is the case or that the world is the totality of facts, not of things. We now have to see these claims as subversive pieces of nonsense, leading us toward a proper understanding of logic, language, and the world.

Words can show, that which they cannot say. :)

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by JustGeoff

Under Heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness.
All can know good as good only because there is evil.
Therefore having and not having arise together.
Difficult and easy complement each other.
Long and short contrast with each other;
High and low rest upon each other;
Voice and sound harmonise each other;
Front and back follow one another.
Therefore the sage goes about doing nothing, teaching no talking.
The ten thousand things rise and fall without cease, creating, yet not possessing, working, yet not taking credit, work is done, then forgotten.
Therefore it lasts for ever.

-------------------------------------------------

I suppose you aren't familiar with Derrida's "Pharmacon" concept? A drug can be a cure, a drug can be a poison, a drug can be both at the same time.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

I suppose you aren't familiar with Derrida's "Pharmacon" concept?


No.


A drug can be a cure, a drug can be a poison, a drug can be both at the same time.

Quite. :)