Right. So why on earth do you keep re-posting the same argument? No one has come up with a counter argument you consider valid. Job done. You put an a...
There's a lot in there; First, I'm sure in some cases it is tedious and frustrating, that is of no concern to me, I'm not here to entertain, I'm here ...
This seems fair enough. If I understand what you're saying correctly, it's that we can, theoretically, discard the notion of 'truth', except perhaps a...
Yes, both 'meaninful' and 'credible' are are assessment within logic and reason. What faculty would you use otherwise to determine what a text is even...
No, I don't tend to myself and I think doing so is a mistake. Only a very small proportion of Wittgenstein's writing was published and I think that is...
I understand our disagreement now. You were referring to intention playing a part in the correct selection from a number of already existing possible ...
Apologies for hijacking your response to someone else, but this point exactly explains what I tried (and clearly failed) to express in my previous com...
But this contradicts your distinction later that We're not using the scientific method to determine that a scientific theory works by using its produc...
Yes I'm not. Logic and reason are ways of thinking presumed from the start of any discourse. The Bible is a book. They are not even the same type of t...
I must have missed that, so perhaps you could repeat. You decided that the question "should atheists prove the authority of reason to speak to the que...
Yes, so is it cruel of me to poke him just to watch him run against the wall? What do you do with these people? I hadn't realised posting here would r...
The point is you are using logic and reason right now to make this argument, so, by your method, you would first have to establish that logic and reas...
This seems to make quite an epistemic leap from the evidence. What we have from history is that - what was more persuasive in the past does not always...
I realise we're not there yet, but I think it might be useful to look at 125 to clear this up a bit. You seem to be reading 125 as saying that a perso...
But that is scientific peers. You're missing something crucial to your definition of truth. You said it is correspondence to the reality that everyone...
I could do (depending on how you're using 'mean'), but that would not, cannot, be the 'proper' meaning. The meaning of a word is conferred by its use ...
But this directly contradicts the private language argument. You can't claim that the thing you intended is what the word 'means' else words have mean...
Yes, I suppose one could if one wanted to hold 'true' to be 'that with which everyone would agree'. I suppose the sample size wouldn't have to be that...
I didn't claim you did. I said, your exposition is littered with caveats which are not present in the text. 109 says we must do away with all explanat...
You've littered your understanding with caveats and constraints which are not there in most of Wittgenstein's writing, particularly the PI. I just won...
That would depend on how you define 'true'. If your definition of truth is 'that which everyone experiences' then a proposition which is true is true ...
Yes, I think that's a safe presumption. Still not seeing why a particular canon of written work would be the only, or even preferred, source of inform...
And how do they go about discovering this then? If, in order to declare something is "true", one must first check if it is that way for everyone, that...
This seems a weirdly arbitrary circumscription, am I missing something? Why would 'information' about "spirit" be limited to those two sources, why no...
I'm still not seeing the difference. Much of your exploration of the philology of 'real' touches on 'existence' and even where it diverges, it seems t...
Ah yes, perhaps that is the "remarkably different" aspect I so carelessly introduced. If so, I look forward to hearing what Harold Shipman and I share...
Absolutely agree, and I wouldn't want to give the impression that I think there's anything wrong with ostracisation either, it's a perfectly acceptabl...
For me, psychologising, as you put it, is just about the only interesting thing there is to do here. Surely as a dutiful quietist you wouldn't claim t...
Why the careful exposition of the meaning of "exists" but none for the equally vague "real". You seem to restrict "exists" by its etymology and yet al...
Great idea. Let's have the list then, of all these universal, completely invariant objective morals with which no one but the mentally damaged disagre...
Where did I say I didn't understand it? I mocked it for being vacuous, implied that there was no substance there to understand in the first place and ...
I think it unlikely either of us are fully sane. We do afterall continue to post as if our words might actually be taken account of, despite the evide...
Oh great. Well if its that simple... Just the small matter of translating any of that into language that actually means anything and we're done. So le...
I doubt he does, but it certainly does seem to have more than its fair share of people who can't tell the difference between rhetoric and factual clai...
Yes, that's kind of what I meant by my analogy. That a proposition, correctly worded, represents one thing and one thing only, like the screwdriver do...
It wasn't so much your monkey language as your contention that "'Slab' means slab, the same every time. it might mean pass a slab, I want a slab, have...
Not at all. Words evolve into meanings radically different from their original use and they would not be able to do so if they were so constrained. Ch...
Exactly. A problem which has dogged much of this thread. Wittgenstein writes a book which intends to point the way to a method of thinking which goes ...
I didn't say it was. Read the post before reaching for your stock reply. What I said was that we either let everyone do whatever they want without int...
Comments