Pie

I disagree. The form is similar, but I claim that concepts are special. Consider the claim: It’s no different to saying “no human has two heads. It's ...

I like yours too. FWIW, I'm largely paraphrasing Robert Brandom who finds his own sources in Kant, Frege, Wittgenstein, Sellars, and Hegel. According ...

To me the tricky part is that the solipsist is making claims about any rational agent, existence or not. Your counter might be that 'If X exists, then...

Division by zero isn't allowed because zero has too many divisors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_divisor

Different uses for different contexts ! I like your version...reminds me of @"apokrisis"'s. But consider how selves function here on the forum. We tra...

But note that I'm accusing the solipsist of conceptual incoherence, which is to say wrong in terms of the universal rational norms that bind the philo...

I've suggested that we look to the appearance/reality distinction that probably informs this issue in the first place. Reality plays the role of the '...

Is it something you can be right or wrong about ? Can one be wrong about the square root of 2 ? Or whether a promise was made ? If not, why not ?

Why do you assume that the external is an object? It's just a spatial metaphor. I've already suggested a 'safer' more neutral understanding of this me...

FWIW, I don't think there's a perfectly 'right' answer here. We are clarifying concepts as we debate an edge case.

Is this just the solipsist's conception of a thinking thing (a 'private concept,' if that makes sense) ? Or do his claims aim at truths about a concep...

What is it that we could be wrong about, according to the skeptic (in this case the epistemological solipsist), who makes an assertion about us ?

I suggest that we understand the self primarily in normative terms, as a locus of responsibility. I ought to keep my story straight (maintain a cohere...

Say what ? You must mean 0 ^ {-1} isn't defined, (roughly) because of the last part of your statement. In other words, f(x) = 0x = 0 is not one-to-one...

How can I make a statement that's true or false without something I can be right or wrong about ?

What can truth-apt mean for a philosophical solipsist ? ( But we can drop if if you want.)

Wrong within the dream of the solipsism or wrong for any rational agent ? If the concepts he discusses do not transcend the epistemological solipsist ...

Perhaps elaborate ?

:up:

:up:

Consider also the joys of being a crank. If I can make a case that all the geniuses got it wrong, then what's that make me ? "All of math is a contrad...

:up:

:down: You are getting lost in metaphors and intuitions, as if a checkmate is illegitimate because involved the bishop was never baptized.

I think it's fair to assume that mathematicians prefer concepts to generalize as smoothly as possible, but it's just not always clear how to make a me...

:up:

:up: :up: :up: The issue seems to be whether beliefs are best understood or not in terms of propositions. Lately I find Sellar's myth of Jones illumin...

Precisely. The trivial possibility of keeping a secret (which isn't always so easy, by the way) is radicalized into an quasi-mathematically NSA-proof ...

:up:

It also doesn't bother me. While a philosopher (and his less pleasant cousin, the sociopath) might be able to see around some of the tribal norms more...

Typically, some metaphysical version of 'private' is intended in these cases. I take it to be grammatical, in that it's, by definition, not empiricall...

. This is a good point to stress. Our Robinson Crusoe Cartesians like to take a result as if it were the given itself. I may end up a taciturn Heracli...

I'm not so sure about your logic there, but I don't need that assumption. I hope at least a few people are enjoying their popcorn as you lecture me on...

I suggest that it's not confusion but simply a matter of replacing a broken theory with something better. Instead of what's essentially a theology of ...

Let's call concepts that people think with privately, according to your or Sellars' Jones' theory. Let's call koncepts what philosophers use to talk a...

Do they reveal truths ? Are we in the same place ? Is it good to know truth ? Good to have reasons for our beliefs ? Wait a minute....is the philosoph...

Do I only imagine that murder is proscribed ? My hunch is that you want to say something like "humans in general only imagine that murder is wrong." T...

:up: I'd expect biology and psychology to be fronts that could support a 'fancier' moral realism...if that was actually needed. But, as I think we bot...

:up: I think you are right about @"Cartesian trigger-puppets", and I and others seem to mean something like formalism (to meet the minimum standard an...

:up: I think this generalizes pretty well too, into something like a quasi-mystical phenomenology versus crude nihilistic 'scientism' (as seen here, I...

It's as if you hope a physicist will find Wrongness in a bubble chamber one day. And, if he can't...there is no sin, just like the mountains told Fran...

And ? Which are real ? What's your stance on this issue ? And why can't I be empirical about promises ? Isn't that what courts are for ? Is it your st...

Consider that it may only be our mutual obedience to conceptual and inferential norms that makes this conversation possible. I also wonder why you'd b...

What spooky metaphysics is that ? The fact that people in this familiar world of ours proscribe murder ?

Looks like I caught my fish. The reals on the bus go round and round. Do you think promises are less real than electrons ? Than snowflakes ? Are infer...

:up: I also don't see it, not in the text. I don't object to texts being wove in to new projects, but it's more agreeable when this is done boldly. Cl...

Do you want me to prove that the sky is blue ? I am not trying to justify the norm that murder is wrong but merely pointing it out. 'Murder is proscri...

I said 'true' not 'truth.' There is almost nothing to be said about truth. Its grammar is absolute and minimal.

The meaning is boringly clear. 'Murder is wrong' is a fact about the world, a fact about the norms of people in that world.

:up: Same here !

I agree. Of course. And water is wet, sir.