I don't see your point. Say "the gods" are the authorities. There would be no such question as the one you are asking, without assuming the existence ...
Right, that's the point I made way back at the beginning of the thread, it's not the statement itself which is judged for truth, but the meaning of th...
No, I don't think that's the case. In order that one acts in a way which is consistent with social customs and conventions, morally, one must learn to...
It seems to me, that you have confused the issue, and have done exactly what you accuse me of doing. The thing is, that you are removing the utterance...
Sentences do not exist unless they are said. Being said is what gives existence to a sentence. So first off it is nonsensical to speak of a sentence w...
As I explained, I view your second sense of "means", as meaningless nonsense. You remove the statement from its context, the thinking mind which spoke...
OK, so when Donald Trump says "this belief is true", that's what it means to you, that the belief is true? Good luck with that approach. Obviously the...
As I argued in the other thread, what I think is essential to normativity is authority. There is no normativity without authority, or at least the per...
When someone says "this belief is true", what it means to me is "I think this belief is true". If to you, it means that the belief is true, then you'l...
I did leave out "other people", just for simplicity sake though. But I guess I thought it was rather obvious that we have more than one teacher, there...
The first statement affirms what the speaker thinks of the belief, "it is true", it does not confirm that the belief is true. There is a speaker of ea...
Yes, that's right to the point. Language use, except in the case of formal logic including mathematics, is not controlled by prescriptive rules, in th...
Yes, I'm denying this, I think it's categorical wrong, and the reverse of what is actually the case. When we see something, and identify it as a tree,...
If you think that describing the way things are, which is what philosophers are supposed to do, is "ad hoc", then I suppose the distinction between de...
I don't understand you, and don't see your point. How does saying "this belief is true" differ from saying "I am certain of this belief"? We were refe...
That's prediction, not prescription. We use descriptive rules to make predictions. Prescriptions are commands of what one ought to do, predictions are...
No I'm not conflating the two. The first says "I am certain that this is my belief". The second says "this is a belief which I am certain of". Do you ...
I don't see a problem with "truth" according to ordinary usage. It's very clearly "that which is true", or "the state of being true. The issue with or...
I really don't think this is true. In each instance of there being a conventional way of doing things, there is a reason why that convention was adopt...
Actually I think it's you who is missing the point. You misuse the word "because" here. The thinking which you demonstrate is a vicious circle. The ca...
No, I have no such expectations, the thought never enters my mind until I see bad drivers driving on the wrong side of the road in inappropriate situa...
You can define a word however you please, but if it's not a good representation of how the word is used, then what good is that definition? In other w...
I agree that it's not "inherently right". I would have a hard time believing that there is anything which is inherently right. Right and wrong are jud...
There are many reasons why I drive on the right side of the road, the possibility of an accident or a fine, to begin with. And mostly, it's what I'm s...
The loop is not necessary though it's a vicious circle imposed upon one's own thinking, by oneself, circular reasoning. If we really look at what "oug...
I don't understand this meaning of "truth". I don't see that "truth" is ever used in a sense which makes it equivalent to reality. "Truth" is related ...
No, descriptive rules are not prescriptive rules, to conflate the two is category error. That's the point I'm making. This is the is/ought separation,...
Sure it's a rule, inductive conclusions create rules. All human beings are animals. Objects fall when dropped. These are rules produced by inductive c...
Well now you're just redefining "belief". But this doesn't avoid the issue of judgement. That one can sense something, and identify the thing sensed, ...
OK, then how were these beliefs formed without a judgement of truth, since belief implies a conviction that the thing believed is true? How does one f...
Then how is learning how to refer to a particular type of thing as a tree, a belief? Learning language is just learning how to use words, like any oth...
Truth is the property of the judgement, in the same way that red is the property of the person who sees a red object and judges that it is red. The pe...
I don't understand why you would say this. Since belief is the conviction that what is believed is true, I would think that belief requires the delibe...
The point I am trying to make is that we must get past this issue of definition if we want to move on toward what "true" really means, or what truth r...
The probe will not be garbage when it is finished with its mission, it will be incinerated. And incinerated garbage is no longer garbage, that's why t...
Isn't belief existentially contingent on judgement? I mean, in order to believe something, don't you have to do some sort of deliberate assessment as ...
Incidentally, that is why we cannot associate "true" with "correct" as Srap is trying to do. "Correct" is associated with "justified", meaning to be c...
The difficulty with this perspective is that when you assume such a thing as "Its brickness ... its being-as-brick", it is implied within this assumpt...
Consider this example ?????????????. 1. Prescriptive rule: Stop your car at every red light, or suffer penalty. 2. The act of following a prescriptive...
Wittgenstein's overall project in PI is to obscure the distinction between a descriptive rule and a prescriptive rule. Perhaps he believed that he cou...
He clearly says at 124: "Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it." Do you believe that ...
The section of the book quoted does not describe a method for resolving any confusions or problems. Wittgenstein says a lot about a particular type of...
You still haven't addressed the contradiction. The "original language game", and "the philosopher's thesis", are mutually exclusive. The latter implie...
Do you agree that you have made a distinction here between what the student believes is right, and what the student believes will be marked as right? ...
Yes, you've shown what Wittgenstein means by "leaves everything as it is". But "dissolves confusions" remains contradictory to this. And when I speak ...
Well that larger context is the inanimate thing we call the universe. Don't you agree? It isn't living, and there doesn't have to be an author of it, ...
No, I'm not ignoring "overarching" you are simply misusing the word "overarching", and that's what I'm trying to demonstrate. The "overarching meaning...
If this is the case though, it contradicts "dissolves confusions". Because "dissolving confusions" implies that the descriptions, theories, concepts e...
Comments