Banno

Tell us, what do you think existentialism is? What are the actual tenets you find so unappealing? You seem to think it has something to do with meanin...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/567097

He removes meaning. (see SEP for more on this.) One must be cautious in moving from the Tractatus to the Investigations. Some things change, some stay...

Do that, then. Or read the article.

2 Towards logical nihilism Russell invents what we might call a ladder of interpretation, starting with a single interpretation, then two, three, and ...

, @"180 Proof" Starting at 16:41 "Arguments can be good in all kinds of ways even when they are not logically valid". But also, "If someone gives you ...

Yep, except I'm not keen on jazz. Too many words. Edit: Taking that further, jazz can be cleverness that hides ugliness. I suppose on that account Rus...

Watching an adroit logician play with this stuff is like watching an talented musician; they know the rules, but break them intentionally in order to ...

TO whom is this addressed, and to which conclusion?

No one addressed this; I think it quite funny. So I'll spell it out. 1. This sentence is true only if it is not part of a compound sentence 2. Snow is...

Lakatos is known mostly as the foil for Feyerabend's anarchic method. So the obvious choice would be to address Feyerabend's criticism of Lakatos' str...

So, pretty much, am I. I don't see any prima facie contradiction between the two. Embodied cognitivism does not rule out abstract formal constructs. T...

Someone the other day said of "The Selfish Gene" that it was most influential amongst those who had read only the title. I wonder if that is true to s...

:grin: You poor bugger. Feel for you. Have a look when you have time - and see the article cited, too. It's curious stuff. There's something going on.

Dealt with a few minutes into the video.

Yep. That's dealt with in the video, at the end. The the monster-barring response?

Also, see Logical Pluralism on Stanford.

I found it fairly clear. But here's the article from which it derives. https://gilliankrussell.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/logicalnihilism-philissues-...

And it is difficult, and counterintuitive. Consider this, from the previously cited SEP article: Information is mercuric. Reaching conclusions too soo...

Yep. There's too much room here for equivocation, for jumping to grand solutions from far too little evidence. The need is to tighten the discussion.

I'm not buying into that. It's a mess. It's not physics, and it's not philosophy. It's nearest parallel is theology. This is what happens when enginee...

It doesn't tell us anything. What does that mean?

So tell me, what is it with which you are agreeing? What is it you take him to have said?

1.The opening paragraph is at best dubious, perhaps nonsense. 2. The posited definitions are ambiguous 3. Much of the discussion that follows is unver...

Wikipedia writes about theology, too. Check out the supporting citations for that quote. Very dubious. But you chose the quote, so presumably you thin...

That makes me nervous. I'm not sure you are. That is more theology than physics.

Notice the similarity between information and god? Are you are inventing a new theology?

Well, no you aren't, because you could be doing all these things and also be vaccinated. I think you ought get vaccinated.

From what you say, Kolakowski is engaging in the logical heresy of treating existence as a first-order predicate. For some that alone would be suffici...

Proper names were for a while held to refer only in virtue of their standing in for a description of the thing named. The description was what was sup...

What doesn't exist is the unintelligible god described by the theologians, the one common to Abrahamic religions. There's still room to feel awe.

Yep. That's what it says in the very first line... 1. The world is everything that is the case.

The only reasonable conclusion is that there is no god.

This sounds like it says something useful, but consider: How is this question - entierly sans information - different? What is "information" doing in ...

The dilettante attitude to which I made reference is not found in Janus. I regret that he made that inference. Rather they were for those who mistake ...

Well this is fun.

Philosophy does not lend itself to the dilettante.

If we were going to do this properly we would need to go through the Tractatus step by step. I'm not up for that - it's been done a few times already....

Why, thank you. Stubbornness is a virtue cultivated by having to explain things repeatedly. Again, if you want to understand Wittgenstein, or any othe...

That's much the topic here: The content of beliefs is propositional" For the purposes of exegesis, keep in mind Tractatus 1: The world is everything t...

Just a little bit.

:wink:

What? As in, again, your meaning is unclear.

The Tractatus sets out to give an account of exactly that. It shows how to systematically derive all possible truths from elementary propositions. Of ...

What do you have against paragraphs? They are useful things. They serve to group the sections of your post, and make it much more readable. Consider: ...

It looks as if @"unenlightened" is tiered of the game.

Yep. Philosophy so often goes nowhere. One common example is the "thing in itself", of which we can say nothing, and yet which occupies many volumes o...

Very nice comeback - thanks! ( I assume it was directed to me? I'll read it that way.) You can't play chess unless you stipulate a distinction between...

Not the really important stuff. Thereof, one might best just get on with it.