Sam26

When it comes to what we know there are a variety of language-games in which we can make claims to knowledge. So in science we would appeal to inducti...

Well, you have to look at the argument, which I give on the first page of this thread about half way down. What you're doing is giving an opinion, whi...

Another important point to make is that just because people are using a word or words in a particular language-game, that doesn't mean that those word...

Another way to think of some of this is the following: First the public (in terms of language and meaning), then the private. We can use words to refe...

Your welcome.

I'm not sure of your point here. Are you saying that we have knowledge of private experiences, i.e., "I know I'm in pain?" Let's clear this up first. ...

That's a fair question, and one that can be confusing. I'm going to be repeating myself for emphasis, and to word it slightly different for clarity (h...

I'll just add some things to these comments. The question, it seems to me, is, what does it mean to have a thought? How do we learn to apply the word ...

I'm not sure what it would mean for our bodies to take up a greater space than what's visible. There's no evidence that that's the case. If you're usi...

Based on my studies of NDEs, I would say that the probability that we're living in a kind of simulation is high. My metaphysics include living out liv...

You really don't need to study logic to have a good understanding of what the Tractatus is saying.

Since no one is responding to your thread Posty, I'll post a few things. First, one must keep in mind that the analysis in the Tractatus is an apriori...

The point of giving the examples is simply to show that there is an objective component to harm, it's not just relative. In terms of justice one needs...

Maybe in court you may need to quantify the harm to properly meet out justice, but in our everyday lives I don't see the need to measure the harm, wha...

My view of immorality is very straight forward and easy to understand. Everything that is immoral, i.e., all immorality involves harm in some fashion ...

I can do that, I'll stop in from time-to-time to check on direction.

What do you want me to do exactly? It's going to be difficult to get people interested enough to actually read the Tractatus. Do you want me to keep a...

It's called a Wittgenstein Commentary, under philosophy of language. I start with the Tractatus.

I understand, it's a very difficult work. Have you read any of my analysis of the Tractatus?

I'm waiting for this analysis, what happened? You need to understand a bit of Frege and Russell, and Wittgenstein's thoughts leading up to the Tractat...

I wouldn't use the phrase "without cause," I would say, "without good reason/s." The word 'cause' has to much other baggage. Moreover, the conclusion ...

Hmmm, it's not always immoral to deny that organism its future value. I would stipulate that without good reason it's immoral to deny that organism it...

When we talk of the zygote or fetus as a potential person we are talking of future value, but we're also talking of present value. No, I haven't read ...

The meaning of the word person is not some philosophical construct, meaning, and I talk about this all the time in my thread on Wittgenstein, is somet...

You won't get an argument from me on that. Except that one could make an argument that the closer one gets to viability, the closer one gets to having...

While it's true that any casual sex risks unplanned pregnancy, it doesn't follow that I shouldn't have casual sex because there is a risk involved. Th...

.

The problem Greta (and thanks for the reply) is that any kind of common perceptual experience can be said to "result in common" life experiences, whet...

.

For us to talk about the facts (states-of-affairs) we need the concepts, but the existence of facts are not dependent on the concepts, they're only de...

Talk about truths or facts is dependent on minds, and thus language is also mind dependent. However, the fact in reality is separate from the concept ...

But there is no evidence for this contention Clark. Unless you want to cite quantum mechanical theories, but even there, there is disagreement about w...

Both of these definitions support my contention, viz., that there is no need for the word "true" in front of "objectivity." Something is objective if ...

Subjective truths are dependent on minds, objective truths are not, so while it's true that if certain objects failed to exist, then truths about thos...

I agree, but that's true of most subjects, things can and do get muddy. However, generally it seems fairly easy, especially in Tiff's case, to delinea...

If I say, "I like oranges," the truth of the statement is dependent on me, i.e., my likes and dislikes for example, and this is what makes it subjecti...

Why the quantifier true in front of objectivity? Something is either objective or it is not. Why do I need to postulate omniscience in order to say th...

Come on Clark, they're two different words with different meanings. I'm loathe to use the term "self-evident," but if there ever was a case that was s...

I don't understand the point of bringing up circularity, as if it's a negative. We're not talking about arguments, which is the point of the fallacy o...

To make my point further, if we create a simple language-game with only one word, say, "slab," and we use it to refer to one object, how is it depende...

I think Tiff gave a good response. I'll add a bit more. As Tiff pointed out, if I give you a report of what happening internally, it's clearly subject...

No, that's not the case. The beetle-in-the-box is totally private, i.e., there is no way for us to know what is going on in any of the boxes. However,...

I didn't say it can't be talked about, some of it can be talked about. It's just that if we do talk about it, it can't be entirely private. For exampl...

Yes, Wittgenstein does show that a private language is not coherent, at least that's seems to be the argument. So I agree with your first sentence, bu...

You may explain something clearly, and sometimes people still don't understand it. In fact, when they don't understand they often complain that it was...

It's more than that, viz., I have private content, but meaning is not derived from my private content. It may be that private content allows for langu...

All I'm saying is that meaning is not associated with anything private. Meaning happens as we use language with one another. So the beetle-in-the-box ...

I don't follow your point, flush it out a bit.

Well, if a group of us have a box with something in it, that only the owner of the box can see and no one else, then whatever is in the box, IS the be...

If you're asking if something can be generally morally wrong, but in a particular context be morally right or correct, I would say yes, but for me it'...