Banno

Well... have at it. Sort this out. I'll get the beers in.

So what? That is, what does this mean, if not that things commence, endure and pass? But also the same is true specially - the thing is here, and it i...

At least Zizek is funny.

No. I've read Aristotle, Spinoza, Kant, Kripke, Wittgenstein and others; I'm no stranger to difficult texts. But there are authors who rejoice in thei...

So if Heidegger succeeded in telling, then tell us... There's that germ of something not unlike Wittgenstein's showing in aletheia - unconcealment. Bu...

Of course. What? Wouldn't such an theory have to presuppose a logic, a grammar in which it might be set out?

They all slept with him?

If he is saying that such terms do not point at all, that pointing is not something one does with such terms, then we have agreement. One can point to...

Hmmm. Indeed. Logic doesn't seem to go with phenomenology of your sort.

But that is what is done in the OP: ...so at the least you might critique the OP for misrepresenting Heidegger. Try adding something to the conversati...

It is hard to divorce the fact that the man was a dreadful human being from his philosophy. He must have had some redeeming features, since he apparen...

So if you are unwilling to drive forward with the conversation, just stop posting. Here's the state of play: second-order logic gives us a neat analys...

What? The pretence is that somehow being - treated apparently as a thing - is structured by time. Explain that.

...you say that as if it were a bad thing. Being clear about something small is an improvement on being obtuse about something grand.

:wink: Yes, I've been sucked in to this thread against my better judgement. If one of Heidegger's interpreters came out in agreement with the view you...

That seems unfair, since I've answered very, very many questions concerning these folk, from you and from others. After all, even those who claim to u...

Thanks. "Pragmatism" seems to be becoming an all-encompassing term, hence the need for specificity.

Who - Dewy and company? Or their more recent renderings? What is it that they say?

Ok - what?

If the goal of philosophy is conceptual clarification, then he's not high on my list of philosophers. Some folk find him enlightening, I find him mudd...

In saying that such questions are ill-formed, I'm pointing out that they do not ask anything; or at least if it does mean something, the answer will b...

From what I've seen his role is obfuscation rather than clarification. So where he talks of being as a sort of standing forth, as putting the pieces o...

Yep. Russell compared this to motherhood. Each and every human has a mother. One. can intelligibly ask who is SophistiCat's mother, who is Philosophim...

Being doesn't exist - cars, chairs and people exist. "There is an x such that x is a car" tells us something about x. "There is an x such that x is a ...

But that says nothing. And shows less.

Do I? Not words I would use. That's a game you might like to play with your friends. He really doesn't.

That your sentence is ill-formed is the point. You would populate the world with non-existent apples.

Yes, for example: Why "now and then" but not "here and there"? After all, whatever being is, if it is structured by time it is also and just as much s...

Asking "what is being?" is asking "How do we use the word 'being'?"; a point worth keeping in mind, since it is immediately apparent that you can use ...

...and yet these are central to science; hence, science is a form of philosophy?

And bottle-washing. Lots of bottle washing. Debatable, but if true, then we agree that the difference between science and philosophy is content, not m...

It's a question of scale.

Sure. I was tailoring my post for T. Clark’s interests, too, in that I think he's working with a faulty picture, part of which you described very well...

The homunculus, sitting in its body-machine, making observations and hypotheses. A pervasive myth. Again, we are embedded in a world that includes a l...

The suposition is that science deals with propositions that are either true or false, and that this differentiates it from philosophy. So let's put it...

:rofl: No, that's mostly just 'mercans. The civilised world did away with that shit years ago.

The myth of a scientific method pervades these comments. What separates science from non-science? Scientific method. What's scientific method? Wheneve...

OK ...and you can ask these questions only because you are embedded in a world that includes a language, other people, and a culture in which to emplo...

We are, overwhelmingly. But we spend much more time on the little bits bout which we disagree.

Cheers. This might be what is missing - but that would be odd, since he seems to have read PI.

Yes.

Not seeing a point to that post.

Science gives true or false answers? I thought the pop wisdom was that scientific statements were never true, only probable. Or falsifiable. And if th...

:gasp:

Then another word might have been more suitable. Perhaps "decide"? "Choose"?

That's what I said.

Meh. The bar, so far as it is set, is set by what works. The counterpoint to the argument that language games are rules-based is found in Davidson's "...

The language game of knowing that such-and-such involves being able to present a justification. That justification must be accessible to others. Suppo...

There's an unresolved tension here. Language games do reach out to other language games. It would be brave indeed to claim that any use is determinate...