Banno

* "This statement is not part of the description" If it is part of the description, then it is false, and the description is inconsistent. If it is no...

More manic musings. If we can number the statements of a description, then after Godel* we might surmise that we can find a true statement not in the ...

Again, I whole-heartedly encourage you to continue on in this vein.

Am too. Nice work, the mod who merg'd all the bumf.

It's that idea, that truth is the same for all observers, that Goodman's ideas are at odds with. In positing this he walks away from our sharing a wor...

See the context. So what's your answer to Sime? I'm not going to deal with this yet again. The Principle of Relativity does not say that truth is rela...

Perhaps. I'd leave it at "indeterminate", unless there's an argument of which I am unaware. One supposes that such descriptions are finite and incompl...

Yep. The true ones do not disagree with each other. The world is what is the case, which is a subset of the possibilities. Goodman's view - the world ...

Drop the word "objective" if it gets in the way. Both an observer on the earth and one in orbit around the sun will agree that, for an observer on the...

"Seems" is confident? Have you a history of, say, game theory that explains how the work of von Neumann and Nash derives from Hegel? Doubtless there i...

Seems a bit of a stretch to link these back to Hegel. Suit yourself.

But there are other ways to resolve "the conflict". Either the cases are equivalent and can be transformed from one to the other as in the geocentric/...

Why ? Why not transition, or just "change"? What is the rhetorical advantage? The coinage elicits "uncertainty and mistrust". All things must pass. Go...

Is a length of string more useful than a paperclip? It seems to be false dilemma season.

nice edit.

I whole-heartedly encourage you to continue on in this vein.

There's that odd "it's not ontology" thingy again. Yeah, it is ontology. The claim was that what we can't avoid is what is real; we can avoid rain, co...

I think supercilious is more accurate than smug. But, as you say, the pot speaks to the kettle. That you've been unable to advance your position witho...

There's that, then. Thanks for the chat.

I'm sorry that I have misunderstood your question. Perhaps you would like to try again?

I'm not saying that, although @"T Clark" may be. I'm saying that we don't always need to start with definitions - indeed, that we cannot always start ...

Back to passive aggressive shite. Twerp. And we can work to remove them. That's unless one is a pessimist.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

SO back to Philosophical investigations §201; there is a way of understanding what is real that is not set out in a prescriptive definition, but shown...

I did: I think we need a pause here.

No, not at all. You can stipulate a definition if you like; but be honest about it, realise that is what you are doing. Better to analysis how we use ...

Why suppose that reality can be defined? Tell me, how would you tell that you had found the right definition? To avoid circularity, you would have to ...

That's what I've been doing in this thread. See my previous posts. Reality is not defined by what we perceive. We perceive stuff that is not real, and...

So you want not to talk about where you went wrong. Fine. :wink:

But not all that we can know. A small consideration... What is important here is to realise that saying things like " Reality only makes sense in comp...

But that is not right. We do say that it's a real painting, not a forgery; that it's a real apple, not plastic; that Spiderman is a fiction, not part ...

We can differentiate between what we don't know, but could know, on the one hand, and what we cannot know at all. And what we cannot know at all canno...

Yes. @"T Clark" asked "What does 'real' mean?", and when faced with an answer, backtracked to saying, "No, I asked what does 'physically real' mean". ...

I avoid the rain by staying inside. Hence, it is not ineluctable; and not real. The voices in my head, one the other hand... One wants to say that rea...

Would that it were so.

Not a good reply. You don't know me, nor what I do in order to improve things.

:grin: Cheers, Bart.

Meh. You set up a false dilemma in the fifth paragraph. But I know from previous discussions that there is little point in explaining this to you.

Just noticed this while replying to TClark. I find Sherlock Holmes vaguely annoying. Holmes relies on confirmation bias. He reinforces what he surmise...

I don't agree. I think I have shown you how to turn the intuition expressed in the OP into something substantial, but that you haven't quite seen it. ...

Perhaps, but the quality of his arguments is quite low. For the rest, I'm content, and hence content not to address your proposals. Pessimism is an ou...

Ok. So can you please explain to me what that difference is?

Hmm. Do you take comfort in your new bedfellow? Having Bart's support ought be enough to have one reconsider one's position, I would have thought. The...

I had surmised that you were drunk when you wrote this. Sad that I seem to have been mistaken. With "capabilities" I had Nussbaum and Sen in mind. So ...

As is your philosophy.

Sure. Thanks.

I don't see how anything I've written here counts against that. Certainly Austin would not have disagreed. Do you suppose otherwise? Or are we in agre...

You seem to think logical, intelligible and rational are synonyms...

Midgley attended Austin's sessions, but it has been suggested that he was somewhat misogynist, and a bit creepy. Midgley's plumbing metaphor builds on...