Yes an odd view from Harman at first glance, but perhaps there is something to it. I can see them being "something" in terms of their causal effects (...
Eh, this gets awfully close to the problem of a hidden dualism. The mental quickly gets covered up with behavior or process, trying to hide evidence o...
Shared meaning doesn't need to be based on personal pain, but that a person is "in the beetle-box" understanding "something" about the word pain, need...
But my claim here is "think" has to be part of it, otherwise "meaning" loses its meaning, and it is simply a "function" (like in a program). Imagine a...
Yes yes, I acknowledged that here, but somewhat more snarkily (I see you ignored to quote): If indeed everything is conflated to ordinary language and...
How is it he is advocating for anything other than our inability to be accurate, or our ability to possibly be in error of what others are saying? It'...
No I am not saying we judge others' private activities, but that "use" needs an internal mental component for there to be meaning at all. I don't have...
Thank you for the clarification. It makes sense to me. If Kant represented the Copernican revolution to make everything limited to "for-the-human" (wh...
Sure, but this language game (the uses) learned from a community is not some Platonic "thing" but is rather the various instantiations of understandin...
That may be what he is "saying" but he rarely "says it" because he's busy trying to ask question after question. You may think that's cute and clever ...
But my point is that most philosophers never asked for certainty of things like "pain". This is a false assumption, and thus becomes a strawman that W...
This is the problem with computational understanding of consciousness. Process without mental is not conscious though intelligent. A computers monitor...
my point, or @"RussellA" rather, is that Witts premise about “use” cannot be solely what picks out meaning. You mentioned “state changes” implying som...
Yeah, it is interesting he can prove anything besides his best hunch. I will put up the next video to see if he goes anywhere with it. So far, his ide...
Except Harman isn't just calling for scientific naturalism (or scientism), because science is human-centered (it relies on human experience). He is ca...
See, I'm not interpreting RusselA that way. At least, how I see how he is formulating it, he poses a problem for "use" if it is just "use" without any...
No I get Witt's claim (use), but does this really satisfy you that someone "understands the meaning of a word" based on the scenario if all were zombi...
Ok bot. Same sarcastic remarks when a point is made you don’t like. What’s funny is you anyone can play that game all day on anything. Posturing at it...
Can’t follow at this point. Can you give the gist in easy way? Who said they are looking for exact certainty of someone’s pain? It’s an assumption we ...
So Harman I believe is trying to say that objects (other than humans or even animals) have their own way of being in the world. He doesn't discount ou...
When I hear "meaning is its use", I sometimes see this as a normative statement, and not a descriptive one. If everyone were zombies, and/or if no one...
My guess is Harman would say this is the "vicarious causation" or "surface level interactions" but not the essence. He is very much non-process (contr...
While I agree with you about relativism, I think the point is that speculative realism is trying to refute "correlationism". In this framing, which is...
It's almost as if Witt, in his enthusiasm for Frege's new project of logic realism, (during Tractatus period), took the opposite approach to Schop. Fo...
Indeed, in a sense the idea that something tangential to the object itself (causal connection or the set of itself or something like that), seems to m...
Yes, I think this accords with what you were saying of Witt's idea of "responsibility" perhaps. Indeed and this goes right to the heart of what I am t...
Are you wanting an answer for why Witt admired..., or indirectly showing your dislike for wanting to learn any Schop (or at least his influence)? I kn...
This looks promising: I do enjoy Brian Magee's analysis of Schopenhauer, and wrote some well-known secondary literature on Schop, so he is a good plac...
Not that Stackexchange is any authority, but this answer seems apt: But just as anyone can take potshots at anyone, it is well to consider this next c...
My critiques of Witt proper had to do with ideas that his critique of certainty really made sense more in the context of early analytics and logical p...
I was commenting on Linguistic Idealism there, not so much Wittgenstein proper. And within Linguistic Idealism topic, I was offering an alternative id...
Got it. Yeah, I was looking at it this way: Language Idealism presumably means that language shapes reality for humans. That humans in a way, "can't e...
I mean this is essentially what I’m saying I just add that one can synthesize one’s own philosophy, using one’s own ideas or ideas from others too. Al...
I mean, now we are just word-parsing but "evil" can mean many things. Some common ideas: 1) Evil is a judgement about certain acts or intentions peopl...
This seems a bit dismissive... But I will grant you analytical philosophy. But look at someone like Schopenhauer.. His philosophy though somewhat tech...
I guess defining Linguistic Idealism as saying that language is what shapes our understanding more than pre-linguistic or meta-linguistic faculties (l...
I'm not sure how you are getting a "why" from the quote. I think we are saying the same thing? I can't really see where your critique is coming from, ...
Indeed, a lot of philosophy can revolve around this issue. I've listened to some of his lectures and generally like his survey of the philosophers, th...
Comments