Banno

Isn't one of the issues here now "What is to count as seeing?" Kinda where we came in.

And does he maintain this position despite his later arguments? That's kinda the point. It's not. Again, that's the point.

Ok.

You tell me. I'm not arguing about the physiology.

Would it help if we noticed that Wittgenstein is acknowledging uses of "know" that he subsequently argues are illegitimate?

Yep. He and I might agree with you. Here he is perhaps looking at common misuses of "know". Yep. Do you think Wittgenstein would agree that "the ultim...

You are quite right – it's not. It is a prompt towards seeking justification - "Can't you see it?. Look closer". But it seems you can't. This is not w...

Trouble is, this text is not a whole. It is an incomplete process, a work in progress. @"Sam26" and I have pointed this out repeatedly.

The bolded word is where Michael oversteps. Things in the word, and the people around us, also have a say in what colours we see. The brain is not the...

SO allow me to address them directly: Neither of these count against what I have said. In the first it is pointed out that "know" involves being satis...

@"Frank", you seem to behaving the same problem, with Fool, as I. That Wittgenstein dislikes Hume is bedsides the point. Wittgenstein takes it as read...

Perhaps I will try again. This is an example that fits my case exactly. Wittgenstein is pointing out that there is no justifying proposition that supp...

I agree, except that "subjective" is counterproductive here. Moore would have "This is a hand" as an expression of something of which he is convinced ...

Good, since I think he is right. I agree. What an odd pair you and Fool are.

I'm sorry you are having so much trouble understanding this. Not much I can do for you.

Wittgenstein's view is that Moore can be certain, but not know, that he has a hand.

Nice.

This is unproductive. Are you arguing that Wittgenstein does not think knowing requires propositional justification? Because your question, "What is t...

Yep. Any point can be taken as fixed, providing the origin of a coordinate system. And if any other point is chosen by someone else, then it is a simp...

There is supposedly a language, Guugu Ymithirr, that could only phrase things in terms of absolute directions. So "raise your right hand" might be "ra...

You could not learn your left from your right if there were no difference between left and right. So it's not just something you learn.

I'm not too sure how to unpack your claims here. So supose we have a culture in which "certain performances... might be performed in an entirely diffe...

You are arguing that Wittgenstein does not think knowing requires propositional justification? Well, you and I differ substantively on our readings. I...

I don;t see a point of disagreement here. The next bit: "This position I will hold!" – that is, it is something I do!

Yep. This counts as a board, this counts as a bishop, and so on. Explicated neatly by Searle's status functions. They are foundational in regard to wh...

Well, it shows the lie of the reduction to relativism and subjectivity – a theme in this thread as well as many others. Folk see space as not absolute...

Well, yes - that answers your OP, doesn't it? You don't need anything so remote.

:wink: It's a faux, foundationalism, in that it is for a purpose, and not handed to us by god.

Care might be needed to avoid a foundationalist reading of OC. I don't think there are some sentences that are unquestionable in an absolute sense. It...

Cheers.

Well, this results in pages and pages about philosophical constructs such as the thing-in-itself... silence is much preferable. But it's not the silen...

I don't see this as a problem so much as a part of the answer: it's not that some propositions are always hinges, but that in order to play a language...

Extra dimensions are not needed. A right-handed glove can be put on a left hand if it is turned inside out. Which seems to me to show something of the...

Thank you for that. You have taken the thread back to the context, which was sorely needed. One way of seeing the discussion is that Moore and Wittgen...

You can't see the obvious here? You want a debate without words? See . Or perhaps you are reading Kant into Wittgenstein. I agree here with @"Sam26"; ...

I don't understand how. Didn't you want to use it in order to explain something about gloves?

And once you represent it, it is the thing... I've never been able to see the point. It seems to me to conceal more than reveal. Nor, while we are at ...

So there's that. We can't know what a "thing in itself" is. But presumably we can know what the thing is. So what purpose is there in this philosophic...

Sure, we can represent a something. Why would it have to be a "Something in itself", whatever that might be.

Why?

Another general comment I might make is that the presumption that some sentences are certain, presumably in virtue of their meaning, is problematic. I...

Well, not only you, and not in response to any particular post. I was just setting out a few thoughts regarding the direction of this thread. There's ...

Ok. No, it isn't, but Ok.

That an object is left-handed or right-handed is relational. You want to claim that the relation must be to an observer. I've pointed out that this is...

What could that mean? That birds do not fly north for winter? Frankly, whatever your conclusion is remains obscure. You seem to be playing with the di...

The coordinate system gives an orientation. Neither of these require an "observer".

No.

The Wiki article is not so good. Try this: A coordinate system is not an observer.

Anywhere off the plane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(mathematics)