More than tempted :). I full on like phenomenology. Sometimes it speaks to me, and sometimes it doesn't. Even so I think it a good philosophical metho...
I haven't read Mishima, so at this point I'd say it's not wrong -- but I'd want to know more, because I don't know really in what way it's right. I'd ...
I don't think that's true, because we can know-how, collectively. That's basically the whole process of production -- to analyse a process, divide up ...
What about the not-ideas? Facts and fictions are composed of words, I'd say -- language, rather than logic. Rather than focus the copula and the categ...
I was saying they can't say what they don't know. And, yes, I agree that this is trivial. But I was trying to mark what seemed to me to be a mundane c...
Here attempting to lay out more against the case that know-how is ineffable (at least in some absolute sense, though I've granted the relative sense w...
I agree, I think there are multiple general-experience categories -- and that we can continue to invent them. Not only can we continue to invent them,...
I'd say that narrative is not logical -- or, at least, narrative brings with it its own logic, if we wish to logicize a narrative. Something along the...
One of my favorite verses -- when a man beats God at wrestling, God promises good stuff on one condition (or more than one, when you get technical) Mo...
Morman seminary, at least. That's my background. And I lucked out and got the classes that focused on the bible, rather than the fictional accounts of...
Neither @"Banno" or me are saying those are the same. If I'm reading @"Banno" correctly at least. I think we're saying they're not the same. So it see...
Heh. This is where I believe @"180 Proof" and myself are currently at, at least mid-read. Is it an I-thou, or is it an I-it, or is it something else? ...
And, after Moses found his wisdom, he came back from the mountain and condemned the people for doing what they had been doing to the point of recruiti...
Man, I really miss https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/11715 I got distracted at the time, but it seems pretty close to all the ponderin...
I actually had to dig through the thread to find your responses, too. I'm not sure why that's the case, but I can report similar . . . dare I say . . ...
And so goes the history of philosophy.... :D EDIT: I suppose I mean, reading that again, that many philosophers set themself impossible tasks and try ...
To be fair, this goes for most of the canonical philosophers too. I've joked that Marx scholarship is basically materialist Talmudic scholarship. Heid...
I think I continue to trip across this thought -- that talking about something makes it effable. I'm going to attempt to draw connections which addres...
Heh, "asking", for me at least, isn't as literal as I'm reading you here. Your link counts as "asking" for me. And if a textbook explanation suggests ...
I mean, I can grant it -- but I'm going to say I'm not sure your ineffable is exactly what I had in mind. While experience and language aren't the sam...
Cool. If it's not a logical procedure, then I believe can get along with it well enough -- though by no means am I an expert on Husserl, just an inter...
This goes some way towards what I was attempting to point out as ineffable -- we cannot speak for others. I thought you were claiming that you were bl...
There is no proving goodness or badness, just as there's no proving something is real. As you say, it's as if it were given, and feels like the world ...
I stopped caring if I was a materialist, physicalist, non-reductive physicalist, realist. . . At least, with respect to knowledge. However, while I un...
Must there be another explanatory means? Or might it be the case that we've tripped across the boundary of language? I think this is an oversimplifica...
You know if you really wanted to undermine The Morningstar of Philosophy we could start a Husserl reading group -- then we could make smarmy remarks a...
I don't have a reason against starting there. At least not that I'm seeing up front. I think maybe you have more in mind, though. However, I don't see...
I think this is the strongest point that those who would like to say experience is ineffable hasn't been addressed -- at best I think one could say th...
I feel like I've found a kindred spirit, but I'll admit I think I'm now on the materialist side of things. And not as an inference, but as a choice. I...
Yeh, in general, people aren't creative enough to see the connections between the abstract questions philosophers ask and the lives they live. But peo...
Was surprised by the overwhelming majority of people who believed in a priori knowledge. Though I bet, with a few questions, the majority could split ...
Hrm, I feel the exact opposite. Phenomenology is a potential route to giving scientific explanations for religious feelings -- if we understand the st...
Yeh, I think you're right. When I want to make safe meta-ethical claims, error theory is home base. Just... you can only draw the conclusions @"Leftis...
What if the moral claims are simply not truth-apt? Like the fictional universe of Star Trek, we posit moral worlds (and, actually, Star Trek kind of d...
Not the utterances, so much, as the speakers. We can speak for our self, but we cannot speak for another's self. No, I don't think so. Though I think ...
Here might be the best, non-jargon category I can think of -- One can never speak for someone else. If God himself spoke for me, he'd just be speaking...
Alrighty, I was wrong then. Just attempting to make sense of things. I guess I just don't see the need for this standard. I'd say that knowledge is ne...
If I'm reading you correctly @"Luke", I think you and I and @"Jamal" and @"Banno" are thinking in terms of two different ways we can talk about "ineff...
When I read this it feels like it'd go the same with objects... we cannot say objects, and so they are ineffable. But the reason we can't say objects ...
Comments