Banno

I knew you would say something like that. If you are not sure the cup is physical, then you are using the word "physical" in a very odd way. Same as

This is like trying to win a chess game by insisting that one cannot be certain that the Queen is a chess piece.

Two dogs fighting over a bone agree that there is a bone. That you read, understood and replied to my post puts the lie to our disagreement being over...

I agreed, at first, then thought that a circle is defined by its radius... one number. So now puzzling.

yeah, and happy to talk about those sins. However in the end the analysis comes down to choosing between bivalent and other logics. That’s a bit esote...

The relevant observation concerning Assange might be how much the various parties are in agreement. They agree that there is someone who did certain t...

So, how Does Language Map onto the World? Was anything decided?

He who gave a philosophical account of Bullshit, is no longer.

Well, there was this book...

A quick doubling down. The idea that language maps on to the world is pretty much the same as the picture theory of language, of loving memory. That i...

Well... The distinction post-dates Wittgenstein, so any ascription will be mere supposition dependent on how he is interpreted. But. Given his overall...

Exactly.

Hence the point is not to understand language but to use it. One that we might agree, at least after one finishes one's coffee.

No. Hinge propositions need not be agreed on, nor need agreement depend on hinge propositions. They are distinct notions. The remainder of what you sa...

I don't see a problem with a bit of effete musing along with one's morning coffee. Not dissimilar to doing a crossword or chess puzzle before setting ...

maybe, (what Heidegger offers is not all that clear), hence my use of Heideggerian language. As to the detail, an analytic approach better sets the lo...

Thanks - I'm pleased that approach was understood. Then they overcome an obstacle they themselves put in their path - hardly a triumph. Phenomenology ...

Perhaps it would have been clearer to you in that new context if I had written that all ontology is word play. It remains unclear what you mean by "fr...

Sure, pragmatism can be of use... Each of us might think that they are the most popular writer on the forum. That may be useful in buoying us each up ...

I explicitly proposed that the issue is one of the choice of grammar, where you suggest I see a "war". Yours is a smarmy reply with little content, mi...

What fun. Oh, yes. I'm presently entertaining the view that the obvious will suffice. So, if we came across someone who thought it acceptable to kick ...

I should be out moving soil, but... The relation between logical systems and antirealism? I gather that this is what produced the swell in antirealist...

Who, me? The sort of truth we are talking about here is that occasionally ascribed to statements. Of course these sit within a framework - the languag...

That emphasis on internal/external is a derangement from phenomenology. In it's place I might put bivalent logic: there is ice on the poles of Mercury...

I've edited together my notes on realism and antirealism in an attempt to set out my view. Speaking very roughly, just to get started, realism holds t...

So it's about what we might believe, not what is true. A distinction antirealists (and pragmatists) have lost.

I'm puzzled by folk differentiating 'objective' truths from truths. Prefixing "subjective' or 'objective' to truth seems to me to do no more than mudd...

, , Surely Quine put the analytic-synthetic distinction, if not in its grave, at least in mortal peril. Or are you both closet Chomskyans?

If you like; I've no clear idea of what the difference between an oyster-for-me and an oyster-for-anyone might be. Isn't it all just oysters? Or, I ca...

We might leave this as moot, since we've discussed it at length previously. I do not choose to say we experience our representations - I think it a mi...

Oooo almost. Following Austin, I have to say not that "we experience representations of plants and animals", but that our experiencing is a representi...

We ought take care to avoid the problem identified by @"Isaac" and I, in which the model constructed by a neural network is confused with the world ar...

Anyway, back to Hilary Lawson. I listened to another podcast last night in which he tried to explain his use of "open" and "closed". It sounded very m...

Well, in this thread our similarities should outweigh our disagreements. I think it pretty clear that @"Joshs" is viewing Wittgenstein through a PoMo ...

Which takes us back to your use of "same". What does not follow here is the never stated but only hinted reductio, that therefore, there was never a v...

I understand that, on the contrary, Wittgenstein took use, not just discourse, as "primary and grounding". Not what we say, but what we do, is what ma...

We do experience the world, one oyster at a time.

Yes, all that. And as you seem to note, what is experienced is the world. We should avoid Stove's gem - the false argument that we only ever taste oys...

I don't see how to make this right. Things are generally not dependent on one's nervous system for their existence.

Quite a few folk say that. What is it you are agreeing with? Searle explicitly agrees with Hilary Lawson that our language is a construct, but points ...

A neat summation of a basic flaw that is rampant hereabouts. Do you see it in @"Joshs" story?

Well, that at least might be a different approach. How would it work?

I've no idea what a "private object" might be. I gather you are familiar with the private language argument? Your purple bear is no longer private.

Prayer is incoherent. Like most of Christianity. The most it can be is an expression of hope.

Thanks, but I wasn't able to follow that. Are the two vases the same, or different? What's "the" vase? I've in mind something along the lines of the a...

Well, as Searle points out in the podcast, even if we "can't take any particular account as granted", it does not follow that nothing we say is true! ...

I hope that, that you are reading this, now, is not something of which you need philosophical reassurance. So apparently the idea is that @"Josh" take...

Well, there's your problem. "Same" and "similar" are not the same. Phenomenology will only add to such confusion. You specified that multiple people w...

What is the purpose of the Euclid space telescope?

I'll take my previous comment in this post back, seeing as how we don't really need another pissing competition, and just say that I find the antireal...