schopenhauer1

I actually see that confirming what I said:

@"RussellA" The way I see it is to look at this progression as a history of philosophy problem.... -You have empiricists (Hume, Locke, Berkeley, etc.)...

This gets to the notions I had here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/842365 Hinge propositions are anti-philosophical. It's simply a...

I was thinking that Wittgenstein meant the content of the thought (like your Martian example) more than belief about the nature of the content, but I ...

:up:

Yes indeed. And how it is that objects relate and interact is a big part of that. Did you read the article? What I like about Whitehead is he has "str...

Just so you know, that last comment was aimed at Witt not your commentary.

?

Cool, let me know when the philosophy begins then. Otherwise, I am on the wrong forum.

Think of this as taking an imaginary journey into how objects exist in the world. Correlationism always asks how these things exist in my world. OOO i...

Nope, but since humans are deliberative animals (as in, behaviors are often chosen with degrees of freedom), knowing what is more "correct" leads to o...

I don't think this gets past this critique:

So far all of this is trivially true.. Yes trivially true, yes. In this case, I don't need a philosopher to point this out, but I guess if Augustine a...

So just a few things here: 1) I am not representing my own view of language. This is purely a hypothetical view designed to show that Witt's idea of u...

Just curious, what’s your take on this? https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/841611

Schrodinger’s theory perhaps? It is both a theory and not a theory. It is immune to all categorization. It is above all such attempts. It is special a...

I’d only add that I don’t even get the arbitrary stopping at private. If there’s no foundational criteria, public cases cannot truly be “corrected” ei...

Don’t you know Witt, can’t be categorized silly. His philosophy just is…,

That means language games / forms of life need an overriding theory but perhaps that violates his need for not relying on “certainty” :snicker:

You cannot prove beyond “my representation” without foundation.

Oh I wasnt meaning to say “our representation” but rather “my representation”, however that applies

How can one claim one was following it? Verifying by another representation. There’s no getting outside representation. Practice isn’t a magic word

How is this outside their own representation? What can that mean? Whence rules etc… outside of one’s representation You can only go to incredulity (co...

Others are verifying…right so no it goes to others verifying. Now, when they verify, is it their own representation of what’s right or wrong, or do th...

How is anything “external”? As I said:

Typooooo

Huh who decides?

Who decides? :chin:

But how is this internalized? Publicly ? :chin: How odd. How do you know what’s internalized is what’s being conveyed? Who has these rules? Who doesn’...

It’s not my view it’s what Witts anti foundationalism points to. That is to say he wants the inner representation to be always hidden and private yet ...

You haven't sufficiently provided what this public is. Those things you described can simply be representations in individual minds. Where does the be...

Sorry took me a while to get back to this video on Harman's aesthetics. There are some points here that I think are pretty interesting. The first is t...

Witt's theory. The beetle box deigns that you can ignore individual representations of meaning as "functionally" it's all "use". Well, that poses prob...

Another way of saying it...language ambiguity/many meanings/can't be sure........ But he is against trying to figure out a foundation... Yet here we a...

You can call it Wittgenstein Circle Jerks - The Continuation.

Because it posits a public entity

Im saying you can’t have both uncertainty, anti foundationalism but then claim that there’s X (rules, games, use)

That logic makes no sense. Someone else’s beetle may think they understand what I’m doing, find it “normal” or not, but it’s just their beetle reactin...

Oh this is like philosophical gaslighting. Most of PI is devoted to ambiguities, misunderstandings, and errors :lol:. It certainly matters to him to d...

I don’t know why I just saw this but I said on the Witt thread:

Prelingustic foundations for language? It’s necessary bedrock foundations without which, no language is possible.

I mean this just goes back to the "map vs. terrain" debates that are perennial on this forum. A computer with the most advanced algorithms and computa...

Right, but see Witt can't get beyond his own dissolving acid. My premise is that WItt's PI has two points, one of which negates the other: Point I: Pe...

Shared intentionality- one way towards a theory of prelinguistic bedrock.

Not sure, it all kind of muddles together at the end... He wants to say "use" which is something "definitive" but then say that language keeps us ever...

In a way yeah. There is no "public space". When a "builder" says "slab", the language community of the builder, is "really" the individual understandi...

:up:

I see your issue with it, but I wouldn't use "undermined" here perhaps. He is using it in a very specific way to mean that the object is broken down t...

What is "public"? There is no public. Public is a shared internal understanding of use, which is internal :).

I think we can agree here. I am not saying we have some a priori definitional understanding per se, just that we need some sort of mental experience f...