Pie

:up: :up: :up:

Cool drawing. I understood much your intention, I hope. For 'Hegel,' there's nothing for 'snow is white' or its equivalent 'it's true snow is white' t...

Consider though : 'John said that Sally said that the rent was already paid.' 'Braver emphasizes the similarity of Davidson's critique of conceptual s...

In my view, this is tricky to talk about because we are not all using 'sentence' and related words in the same way, sort of like dereferencing our poi...

I was half-joking, trying to get you to see that your theory includes the 'ineffable' implicitly. The 'windmills' comment was intended to remind you t...

It definitely has its place. I think maybe the same criticism applies to it though. The noun 'is' the object as intelligible. Folks like to say that t...

It's my understanding that Carnap was wild about this stuff and that he worked out complex systems.

Let's see. So you want to link nouns to objects maybe ? Independently of the claims they appear in?

That helps. Brandom claims that the original pre-Kantian approach was in terms of parts rather than whole sentences, and that Kant's achievement was r...

A bit like the 'ghost' at the heard of the hard problem. It's there, I guess, maybe, but there's nothing to be said about it. It's the hole in a dough...

To me the alternative is an indeterminate X for everything that exists non-linguistically. So it's 'Hegel' or 'Kant,' which may be like choosing a red...

Yeah it could be smug or mystical. But it's basically Hegel, so...no surprise ? Is it a bug or a feature ?

OK, so it was just terminological habit/expectation.

I guess I wouldn't say that white denotes snow. I'd just say that "snow is white" is true if snow is white.

I never studied Frege closely, but I thought he cast the meaning or reference (or something) of propositions as True or False. Maybe someone can chime...

:up: :up: :up: I liked this closing especially. Relevant to us here, yes? We don't see the norms the same way, correct ? We can even pretend they are ...

So what's your preferred understanding of truth ?

:up:

Is this a Fregean idea ? It jars my intuition, but I'm willing to hear the case.

I'll grant you that. But I don't think it hurts our feelings the same way. Nabokov wrote that the real conflict was always between the author and the ...

:up: That reminds me of what I'd call a 'deep metaphor' theory, and which I'd associate with Wittgenstein and Heidegger. The stuff that binds all of u...

Earlier I contemplated < <P is true> is true > is true>. I believe idempotent is the technical term. It seems to work in this simple case at least.

Dude. Seriously ? Windmills. Tell me what is then. I was just guessing on that one.

:up: Good point, but I want to respond to something else. You joked about being an alien or a cat in another thread. I relate to this. There's a mode ...

That's it, yes. "P is true" is "P", tho @"Isaac" makes the fair point that "true" is meaningful in terms of emphasis and I guess therefore pragmatics.

Could you elaborate ? I tend to model the situation in terms of the social as the bottom most layer. I am fundamentally one of or a piece of us. The t...

:smile:

No. Just an icebreaker. I actually don't think truth is a property. I like the redundancy / prosentential approach.

Basically. We know that Nietzsche, to name an aggressive aphorist, is not trying to insult or trick us. There is no trust or failure of trust involved...

:up: To me this makes sense. Dissolving the subject is dissolving all of the subjects. The boundaries and concepts themselves are constantly being neg...

:up: We should be tough. An important distinction, in my view, is that between reading the dead and chatting with the living. Once trust is establishe...

Thanks. I plan to check out his work.

Nice quote. There's a passage in Nietzsche that's similar. So-called 'free will' is perhaps best understood in terms of norms of responsibility. We ar...

:up: That squares with my reading of Freud. That seems partially true. There is a brute animality in us that responds to our hand in the fire in one w...

Oh. Well I think we agree then. But only gods can live there and not just visit.

Like I said, good common sense, which leads nevertheless to endless confusion. We can assign an X marks the ineffable spot if you like, but that's why...

Tell me more. Are we to constantly celebrate the Priority Of Feeling And Sensation or the Ineffable Priority of Real Life within otherwise dry convers...

OK, I want to agree, but you talking about reality here, so that this reality you talk about is indeed linguistic, because we are. We can abbreviate '...

Concision is a fascinating issue. Terseness is typically good (so say the style books), but it can also suggests that the listener is not worth more t...

That sounds good. Personally I'm sympathetic to the idea that it's usually pointless to hate or resent. The grand soul understands. Shakespeare is one...

No worries. I'll try to be mindful of that. Sorry if I came/come off rude. Text is a tricky medium.

Nice ! What's your favorite Gendlin text?

Well I give you points for radicality here. FWIW, there's a passage in Aurelius about barking dogs,a metaphor for 'irrational' or blameworthy humans. ...

I don't think there's (always) such a gulf. I may be a old soul who has made the very mistake myself. I take us to be basically or mostly in the same ...

The past leaps ahead for a project in the way it handles the present ?

:up: All great issues. I wonder to what degree exactly such an investigation can avoid attributing postulated linguistic beliefs, supplementing the ma...

I like the correlation approach. I'd just say that this seems to be the kind of mathematical modeling of disposition that I mentioned as an option ear...

:up: Agreed. But we're philosophers ! Someone out there my lecture us on the tax we don't know we're paying. I've been reading The Confidence Man late...

Philosophers fear being deceived more than others ? While strong poets fear being forgotten more than others ?

Why would basic judgments like right/wrong and good/bad not be crucial to such sense-making ? Are we not beings who desire and fear?