Banno

So it's not that you think we can never be certain; it's just that you think we can only be certain about some issues, not others. Good. Well, yes, in...

Why are you so certain of this? I put it to you that you know you are not having a vivid dream - you really do not want to admit to be dreaming of me,...

or better, but more difficult, https://archive.org/details/g.-e.-m.-anscombe-an-introduction-to-wittgenstein-s-tractatus

The Tractatus is a difficult work easily misunderstood. Perhaps this will help: https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/tractatus/

I've been unable to follow hypericin's account. Take the following: The world could be anything, yet we somehow have access to empirical facts...? Sur...

The argument from illusion: We sometimes see things as other than they are, Therefore we never see things as they are It is clearly invalid. Indeed, i...

'cause no one knew about illusions before Micky Mouse.

Yep. But I don't think we need the "really". We (sometimes, just for Flannel) see the world as it is.

I agree. Both direct and indirect realists of course accept the account of perception provided by science. The difference is not one of fact, so much ...

Privilege is imperceptible to the privileged.

surely tuning the engine is doing something…? Even if it’s only making noise.

If anything, that paragraph shows a simple failure of comprehension. Sure, we only feel stuff because of nerve impulses. I never claimed otherwise. Bu...

See the SEP Article Wittgenstein’s Logical Atomism. The nature of "object' is contentious; it might be bets to acknowledge this and move on (For my pa...

Cheers.

I hope you realise I rejected that view.

No, we do not. I touch the two pieces of sandpaper and choose the 200 grit for the fine work; I hand them to you and ask you to choose the 200 grit, y...

Well, over time, it is inevitable that the interpretations of an author diverge. An Hegelian will read with an Hegelian lens.

But where is this used by Wittgenstein in the Tractatus? Third ask. The pointless bit is continuing a conversation where someone says a text says some...

Best drop this. It is a side line and rather pointless.

, , that'd be ChatGPT, not you. You can do more than just "continue the prompt".

Well, I went over the various papers mentioned hereabouts. But in the end it seems to me that if what is involved in 'sublimating Kant" is just making...

The obvious objection is that we coordinate behaviour by communicating. But "I promise to fetch water for you if you give me some of that haunch" does...

Supose that how you think is not the same as how others think. There is a growing body of evidence that this is the case. Suppose that despite this th...

Nowhere does Wittgenstein say that we cannot know all the facts. Nowhere is that relevant to his argument. He does say "The world is the totality of f...

Yep. And at the end of all that, you will have felt the sand paper. Not your skin, not your nerves, not the signal conducted to your brain.

Where?

Yep.

just to be sure, is this what you think Wittgenstein is claiming in the tractatus?

Then I'm not seeing a cogent point in your remark to Sam. You said But how could the facts about the world not be complete description of the world? I...

Illuminate?

There's an equivocation in this. Everything we might say includes saying things that are not true. But if you say something about the world, it would ...

If there is a fact you don't know, then there is a fact. It's not about things that haven't been said, but things that cannot be said.

We have an audience? Cool. Yep. If the world is the totality of facts, then how could everything that can be said about the world not be a complete pi...

I may get around to replying to you down the line.

Then I do not see how you can make sense of Tract 1.1

Hmm. Do you feel the sandpaper or the model of the sandpaper? I would say that feeling the sandpaper involves modelling its texture, and that what you...

I notice that this is not (p v ~p). It is not a tautology. That would be or The simple point here is that sometimes the brain models the way things ar...

Misfire are curious. One can touch but not feel - numb fingers in the cold. Or listen but not hear - the sound had too high a pitch, perhaps. Or look ...

Well, no. I feel the different grit of the sandpaper. I don't feel my nerves. I feel using nerves. That's kinda the point. Feeling only one's nerves w...

Hmm. Ok.

So smells bear no relation whatsoever to the stuff around you? Odd.

...your homunculus. Sitting in there looking at the stuff your brain presents to it, never seeing or touching the stuff around it, not knowing if it i...

Your homunculus is showing...

The glove is a fine example. Here, indirect touch or feel makes sense. And yes, touch and feel are different things, which is why we have two words. I...

How do you touch something indirectly? What to make of an indirect realist account that has one feeling a representation of the sandpaper, not the san...

, What happens if you reconsider these issues in terms of touch or smell? It becomes harder to insert a "representation" in those cases.

Is that your fear here? That you will lose your autonomy? I'm sorry, Nos, I genuinely have been unable to follow what it is you see as problematic, no...

Ayer sometimes appeared to be doing just that. But as Austin shows, there is little consistency in his account. Trouble here is, without citations the...

You are enjoying the change of subject, I see. Yes, not at all dissimilar.

Curious, that you chose such a cooperative resource as Wikipedia. The citations in Wikipedia come down to one source, that noted resource for etymolog...