Banno

Reality is not subjective. Anymore than democracy is green.

We tend to look only at knowing that such-and-such is the case in our philosophical meanderings, forgetting the more common know how to do such-and-su...

Part V Claiming to know only makes sense when doubt is possible. This depends on the notion that our beliefs are to be found only within language game...

I've no idea. What do you think?

I'm more interested in Sam's exposition than in tedious chitchat. If you are keen, the related thread I started on the Grayling article awaits.

If you wish to understand, you might benefit from a wee bit of charity, instead of the tedious "gotcha". Yes, it is true that 2+2=4; an it is true tha...

Of course it is true that 2+2=4. No one here doubts that. What may be contentious is whether 2+2=4 can participate in the activity of deciding if it i...

I've something like this in mind. A "family resemblance" of language games in which beliefs live.

Being a hinge proposition - I'm not too happy with that term - is not a characteristic of a sentence in the way being a proposition or a question or b...

Cheers. The weakness is in the "X occurs only if Y"; it's usually contentious, a single counterexample being all that is needed to defeat the entire t...

...but not in Chinese, perhaps.

Yes...

Yep. It is a better OP than most of his, but they all seem to share the error of the primacy of the individual.

A neat rebuttle. It seems to me that the conclusion you reach is that morality is not individual - what Bartricks calls "subjective". That morality is...

Part IV I've just come from a conversation with @"Fooloso4" who made a similar point to the one Grayling makes here; it is unclear what sort of propos...

I'm curious as to what you found interesting. Hey, I'm making this up as I go along, so comments welcome.

That's apparent, and welcome, but you are not alone. Hinge concepts are indubitable. That is, they are not to be subject to doubt; hence, they are "ou...

Part III Does Wittgenstein's foundationalism get him out of this? The argument goes to Feyerabend, who's ideas derive from both Popper and Wittgenstei...

:wink: It's not a proof, so much as a test.

p & ~p ? q If that don't convince you, you're not worth talking to.

Yep. In the example given, one object both here and there, there's no contradiction. It's just unexpected.

Sure. Keep thinking.

QM does not contradict itself. If it appears to contradict your Aristotelian logic, then so much the worse for Aristotle. Any contradiction you think ...

...Sam, quoting Monk. The basic reply to your OP, by me and others, is that failure to accept non-contradiction undermines any further discussion. Go ...

That's not how it looks; but it must be what you take yourself to be doing, in order to be consistent. In order to engage in an argument, there must b...

Part II This section seeks to build tension between OC1 and OC2.This he does by having his sceptic move from doubting the book before us, to doubting ...

"We are existence" does not follow. "We exist" does.

Part I Grayling finds two views in OC: OC1: Our beliefs are to be found only within language games, each of which is formed by taking some beliefs as ...

If you are arguing against argument, then there is really no point in anyone responding to you with another argument is there? That's the upshot of th...

Indeed. Spoiler alert.

Yep. I think you are reading the text a bit too tightly. There's three more examples, generalising the notion beyond mere mathematics. Others abound, ...

Seems to me that Sam answered you well for the scope of this thread. You were mistaken in thinking that "the only example of a hinge proposition is a ...

I was considering a seperate thread on Grayling's article, so as not to sideline the exegesis Sam is presenting here. He's a careful interpreter of Wi...

I don't disagree too much with the substance of this. If the rook moves by itself, it's not playing chess. This is not too far form the topic of An an...

Indeed, definitions are fine so long as they are not definitive...

You seem to have missed the point, since you continue to treat existence as if it were an individual. Oh, well.

I agree.

If that's intended as a definition, then it is circular. Moreover, existence is not a pattern of change, since there being a change presupposes that t...

Nothing more to say, except without the occasional drive-by, the forums would be a lot less interesting.

Thank you, I've been doing it longer than you, so perhaps you will be able to achieve better results in a few years.

That wasn't a drive-by shot? OK. I was using "exists" as it was used in the OP, following on that conversation., You bought something in from another ...

OK. Try this: You're dreaming. A reverie such as this is not physics. Same goes for .

Unless of course you are born with chronic conditions. Hence my unanswered question about disability. Again, the presumption in synthesis' position is...

Sure. SO there is a need to keep track of the domain - universe of discourse - in which our conversation occurs. And..? (Edit: Just to be clear... you...

That's what you got. Perhaps you didn't recognise it.

What's the most useful skill? The one you are using now.

I replied to your other thread. But I have to ask, what were you expecting in response to a post on a philosophy forum? Of course it was going to meet...

Well, there is an x such that x is purple and flies and is an elephant. Does that commit us to purple flying elephants being actual thingies you might...

No, things change. Your conclusion does not follow. Indeed, if anything it shows the opposite: that things continue to exist despite change.