Banno

There's a grey rug on my chair. But Banno, there is so much more to the rug... It's cotton, a rough hand-weave. The warp is a slightly lighter grey. T...

Odd, then, that it seems we do understand her. https://ballastexistenz.wordpress.com/about-2/

SO what? Where is the interesting disagreement you promised?

This is where we came in: I don't object to this. The notion of incommensurability was used by some philosophers of science to claim that some theorie...

A bit more on incommensurability. See §499. To set out a language game is not always to impose a limit. Language games can change.

Interesting. I had thought that to some extent Wittgenstein is using "grammar" in a broader sense than mere rules of syntax. Hence the notion of depth...

Nuh.

But why call these behaviours language games?

That is, the lion would do very different things with words?

OK. Grammar here is adherence to a language game - would that be about right?

Cool.

And recognisably, they interacted. What did these "language games" look like? I wonder if the behaviourist is using the term in the way Wittgenstein d...

??

To be sure, I can agree with this. I would add that as well as being embodied, we are embedded in a shared world. SO we share long grass and antelopes...

You want an assurance that the lion is not a zombie?

...and how, exactly, is that? Work through it. ?

You want to judge rules as correct or incorrect without reference to rules?

How could you recognise that the lion is saying something without recognising what it is saying?

I don't see how the notion of qualia can be made coherent. either qualia are private, and hence irrelevant, or they are public, and hence already part...

Don't doubt where doubt is unfounded.

After Davidson, if we are able to recognise that the lion is indeed speaking, then by that very fact we must be able to recognise some of what it is s...

I'm at odds with Wittgenstein here. Consider, also on p.223, If I see a lion writhing in pain with evident cause, do I think: all the same, the lion's...

Some ramblings, just to get my thinking going. First, it is important to note that PI is set out as a conversation between Wittgenstein and himself, a...

:-|

Just pointing out that there are plenty of things that we do not doubt until some philosopher asks us to. Folk take it as read that we ought not belie...

Thought it might be worth pointing out that this conversation is in English. Further, the participants do not doubt that the conversation is in Englis...

That's good. We do not have a term for being surrounded and saturated in air.

Nonsense is always the issue.

Don't be shellfish.

So the issue here is that we have not decided on a porpoise for this thread.

This thread, to my eye, presents an exact analog of how philosophers work.

As is wine; but what of whiskey? Does it cause more difficulties than it solves?

Apparently; acidy fats. So to be saturated is not to be able to take any more. How you going, @"Posty McPostface"? More?

But are you soaked, or is it just your cloths? And what are we to make of saturated?

So we must look at the polarity of the molecules of the fish... If we go down that path, we are going to be immersed in quantum mechanics.

To be soaked is to be wet through. It follows that the only thing that can be soaked is water.

@"Bitter Crank" https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/dry-cod-fish-12042887.jpg A dry fish.

So we might have moist liberals... Is moist less wet than soaking? It seems so. Presumably then it is possible that a fish in water is soaking, while ...

SO we must rout out the ambiguity? Words are useless if ambiguous?

Language is our tool. It's up to use to work out how we ought best speak of wet fish.

So wetness admits of degrees? If I step in a puddle, am I wet? If I wash my hands, am I wet? If I stand in the bath, am i wet? As I lower myself into ...

Moisture might cause wetness, but I wouldn't count it as the very same thing. Moistness, well, that's something else.

Hence "wet liberal".

So So my smoked cod is a dried fish, and when I poach my smoked cod, it's wet?

Now that's real philosophy. What we needs must do is work out the consequences of both approaches, and decide which grammar better suits our porpoise.

Almost. Asking whether our particular carving is the one true carving is to forget that there are other ways to make sense of the world, each of which...

What counts as an abject is what we choose to count as an object. That is, your question is about how we should best use the words 'people', 'rocks', ...

Then are you using teleology with some alternate meaning? Teleology without purpose... It is up to you to show us what this alternate teleology does.....

Heaven forbid that I should fall for such a thing! Save me!

OK, correct me - what is teleology? My dictionary disagrees with you.