Banno

Good for you. If something is known, then one can conclude that it is true. In Chess, it is true that the bishop stays on it's own colour. I'm not at ...

What the objects are is "a matter of empirical investigation to find out", not an issue to be addressed in The Tractatus. It is irrelevant to the work...

That's a nice little cage you have built for yourself.

Maybe see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/826747 So the dog knows that it is raining, even though the dog cannot say that it is rain...

Yep. That was my point (Actually, Searle's point). What animals know can be put into a proposition. The content of an item of knowledge can always be ...

That was what I was talking about. I've no clear idea of what you are talking about, if not objects. Here is where you joined my part of the conversat...

Hu? Nuh, best leave it.

So can you tell us, without putting it in a proposition, something some animal knows?

Yep, certainty is a form of belief, not of truth. One can be certain of whatever one choses. Or doubt whatever they like. What I am pointing to is sim...

I was more a Samuel Becket sort. https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/585832425016e17cbf7235be/1547055293912-L762XDNCGJUNPG70KYCY/Godot+featu...

Yep. That's much better than the incoherent claim that we know nothing, or its inane sibling, that there are no true statements. It has a huge pop sta...

Lakatos? Is it set in stone that nothing is set in stone? You are clever enough to understand that we must start somewhere...

In the post above, ( ) where you quote my comment about simple objects and then go on to reply to it as if it were about elementary propositions.

Candyland sums up their relation... Camus was not an existentialist.

Just edited my previous post, as is my want. I remember the crowds lining the street when Sartre died. Were they being ironic? Existentialism only wor...

Your bad faith is showing... You have to decide for yourself, not just give me the nod... :wink:

Because you seemed to me not to be differentiating between atomic objects and elementary propositions.

So you are certain of that formula? And you know this to be so? This is said without irony? :lol:

Well, what do you think? :wink: You get to decide.

Justified true belief? Whatever "it" is. Our knowledge is not limited to subjective experience. For example, that you answered my post demonstrates th...

To be blunt - my specialist area - those who have answered "yes" to the question in the OP have thereby shown that they have not understood existentia...

Ok, but elementary propositions are not atomic objects. See also the last whole paragraph on p.27. "The theory of knowledge is the philosophy of psych...

The essence of existentialism...? Something's amiss here.

...so we know our subjective experiences for sure, and hence there is something that we know for sure, and so it is not true that we cannot know about...

Coming back in after not reading the diatribe since my last, we do indeed recognise the difference between dreaming of eating a steak and eating a ste...

Perhaps this is how one should think about these objects. The analysis of language demands that there are elementary propositions. These elementary pr...

I doubt it. Look for yourself. That there are such things is implied by the structure of language Wittgenstein develops. What they are is irrelevant. ...

Sorry - elementary propositions - Popper used "atomic propositions" and I was reading his account in Anscombe. This is too fast for sufficient care. (...

No. If you had said "possible facts can either be the case or not be the case", I would agree. All facts are the case. Then followed with

Not at all. I haven't read the replies here in detail, focusing on your posts instead. My interest is in the change between Tract and PI. In Tract, ob...

:smile: We are writing over each other. An excellent few pages. Well done. Still think you should put it into WIki...

Then I think we are on the same page. Have you read Anscombe's book? She had this stuff at first hand, of course, so is I think authoritative; the onl...

That is what they have said. :roll:

What it does not say is "any fact can be true or not true". Facts are all of them true. Some possible facts are not true.

The trouble with talking to two folk at once in a forum. Yep. In more modern parlance, of all the possible worlds, only one is the actual world.

You are misreading it. There are no untrue facts.

Ok. I'm not that interested, since it seems so obviously misguided.

That's a misquote. 1.21 Each item can be the case or not the case while everything else remains the same. An item is only a fact if it is true.

Here's a PDF of Anscombe: https://archive.org/details/g.-e.-m.-anscombe-an-introduction-to-wittgenstein-s-tractatus/page/n9/mode/2up I recommend readi...

No, it can't. If it is a fact, then it is the case.

I don't quite agree with this. As Anscombe says, simple objects are demanded by the nature of Language (see her text, p.29), referencing 2.021 and 2.0...

For my own purposes, a link to just Sam's posts here.

Just going over this page. There can be no false facts. I gather, Sam, you have been misunderstood by 013zen?

what I said had nothing to di with popularity. The thread topic is confused.

Well here's a new trick. When folk point out that the thesis in your OP shows a misunderstanding of the topic, go back and edit the OP to change the t...

well, no, it means that my responses to him must seem to him to be novel.

Maybe. Definitely means that my same old same old is the "most stimulatingly fresh pathways imaginable".

The best new stuff is old stuff, you claim. But not in so few words. And as I read that I can't help but notice your need to obfuscate rather than exp...

That something is, is found in a proposition. Quantification or domain of discourse. Since justification presumably makes use of propositions, then of...

...and? Sure, we recognise new stuff in terms of old stuff. Yet there is novelty. The conclusion is that there are unknown truths. Who do you count am...