Banno

Your framing of questions such as this shows a misinterpretation of what is going on. IT's how you picture the situation that is problematic. There is...

Have a think about what a theory understandable only by George would be like. Does George say "I have a theory about X but I can't explain it"? Or is ...

There is a difference between a theory not being understood by George and a theory not being understandable at all.

:joke:

Hm. We take care to distinguish the unexpressed,which might be said but so far hasn't, from the inexpressible, which cannot be said. And to this you n...

Hm.

I rather like this. A theory that could not be understood but with denies ineffability. Sweet! You can hear duck-rabbits marching! And yet, since we u...

And? The belief can still be stated.

Your village idiots set up the language in which you can articulate your knowledge. But your knowledge is not dependent on their agreement.

Sort of. You can drop the "first". Knowing how to ride a bike is demonstrated by riding a bike; knowledge of addition is demonstrated by doing additio...

Odd.

A bit about mental states or phenomenal states. I spoke earlier about wanting to deal with the dynamics of belief. I'm not at all happy with thinking ...

An excellent point. The picture of the world is part of the world. Another argument against the idea that we have a mental model that we refer to, whi...

Thank you. This is a most thought provoking reply - even though it goes back to things we already covered, it shows stuff that needs explaining. Now, ...

An earlier version of Davidson's "always already interpreted", perhaps, in that it seeks to dissipate the map - territory distinction. But is it? If w...

I think, rather, that silence is the result of wisdom.

I'm thinking of starting a thread on submission. It seems to me to be morally indefensible.

WHat's that, then?

I'd rather think that the greatest mystery is: what should we do?

And this is one of his best papers. :smile:

Hm. Davidson's "The world is always already interpreted" and Wittgesnstein's "the word is the totality of facts" seem to me to be saying much the same...

Are there a priori concepts? The argument proceeds by showing that understanding a concept is no more than understanding how to use the associated ter...

Cool. Good to see the thread growing, though. Not too happy with the analysis of truth in the Stanford article. so Hm. x is rot, in German, iff x is •...

Roughly, that there is nothing had in common by, say, red things, but instead we just use the word "red" in a way that suits our purposes. The meaning...

Cheers. I'll keep reading.

Interesting - and subtle. So we might have a world of objects, and a language consisting entirely of proper names? AM I on the right track?

There's a type of discussion that goes "but that's ontology, not communication, and therefore it is wrong". The details are never fleshed out. So I ig...

What could it mean to say that a proposition is an object? A proposition is not an object in the sense that this laptop is an object. So what sort of ...

So - and I've just started catching up on this thread, so this might have become apparent in other posts - his point is that predication is something ...

Not at all. Firstly, the concept of concepts is a mess. SO instead I'm looking at what we do in making use of beliefs. To believe something is to act ...

What doesn't follow?

You don't see a problem here? Metaphors are not words? Again, wisdom seems to me to be a worth goal in itself; why add "oneness or harmony of everythi...

:grin: Hence the Quaker podcast. That's how to talk about God.

At least we can talk about nothing.

What is "truth" in this context? It doesn't seem to be "a statement of fact", since if god is beyond words - Is truth beyond words? I would have thoug...

It's already too much.

Young Quaker Podcast.

So God is beyond words? Makes for a short thread.

@"Sapientia"; @"Srap Tasmaner"; @"creativesoul"; @"Hanover"; @"frank"; @"javra" "F" the ineffable. I've set out why I choose not to consider phenomena...

Nope. We can't talk about the music; then you share your headphones with me, and show it to me. Our world now includes the tune. We can talk about the...

This language is fraught. What more is said in "I'm inviting you to have a particular phenomenal experience" than is said in "Take a look at this"? If...

Back to error. Truth results from falsehood. If every statement were true we would have no need to note that they were true. It is because some statem...

You say things about that about which you can't say things. There's the problem.

Which "it"?

Fill that in - what is it you think is going on here that is not in my account? Or are you agreeing with me?

Yep. The 'effable' grows with the conversation.

Here's my beef with phenomenal states. If they are ineffable personal experiences, then they cannot be discussed - that's what ineffable" means. But i...

Frank, do you think that being conscious and having 'phenomenal states" are the same? I gather you do, since you equate my negative attitude to phenom...

I'm going to go over the bit about belief and falsehood again, since it is more interesting than repeating the private language argument again and aga...

But why would you suppose that I don't think consciousness is involved in belief?