Banno

No, indeed. That purpose is teleology is what undoes your post. You need to argue that teleology is not purpose.

I don't follow this - idealist has far too many connotations for it to be clear. I was considering a thread on the analogy between Lorentz transformat...

What do you expect? You present a supposed argument from analogy that fell apart on analysis. Teleology is purpose; you can't argue that purpose comes...

Yeah. End of discussion.

Our disagreement now appears trivial...

The analogy fails; the knife does not make itself.

I don't find that argument at all convincing. People are different to knives. The teleology of the knife comes from the purpose for which it was made....

I can't see how that helps you get from an is to an ought. Moore dealt with teleology; unless you enlist a deity of some sort, introducing purpose jus...

Ah. God did it?

Hmm. He explicitly accepts much of Wittgenstein, then moves on to what he sees as the next step. Language games are not fixed. They can change, mingle...

No, it isn't.

Hm. The point is perhaps too subtle. Jack can have a true belief; Jack cannot believe that he has a true belief. Doing so requires that he have access...

If we were able to understand that the lion spoke, them by that vey fact we understand that she and we share something...

Why?

I suspect Wittgenstein might have rejected his own comment. The issue is whether language games are incommensurate. He seems to have thought so in som...

Yep. It's an old discussion, @"gurugeorge", including a debate in another forum. But @"creativesoul" keeps returning to it. Mind you, I also suspect t...

So, do you think it moral? What does your answer tell us about you?

It remains an is, from which explanation is needed if you are to derive an ought.

You would still have trouble getting from what is the case about human nature to what we ought do. Perhaps the right thing to do is to fight our natur...

Of course.

Does he believe he has true beliefs?

Are we?

Take some time to consider the circularity here. What is a fundamental physical object? What is a simple without parts? What has been said in the quot...

Pissing competitions. Meh.

Anthony Kenny? What secondary sources have you available?

SO you be the grown-up and help me out of this loop.

That's not how I understand it, and I am not alone. See, for example, http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/investigations/section2/page/2/

Compare it to the discussion of logical simples in TLP ?2.0...

@"creativesoul" The closest you will get is the T-sentence, and that sets out an equivalence.

Tell me more.

So what is ?48 about?

SO you just want to go in circles. I'm not so keen.

And you think this is objects and things. Ah. Do you agree that logical simples were rejected in PI?

Single place predicate: "the cat is black". Represented by f(a) Double place predicate: "The cat is on the mat", setting out a relation of "...is on.....

The picture grew to be a Lebenswelt.

Where in Wittgenstein is this from?

Except you said "Correspondence with fact is what makes statements true", limiting yourself to language. Now you want to shift to something like "Corr...

Except Wittgenstein??

No. That would make truth a binary predicate - it isn't.

Of course there is some continuity - he wrote both. But each offers vastly differing accounts of language. Perhaps setting out logical atomism so clea...

Why? A child can tell what is true from what is false. It takes a philosopher to doubt such things.

There's another distinction you have made. How do things differ from objects?

@"Posty McPostface" You and I face each other. You hold up a hand and say "Here is a hand". What would you make of any incredulity I might offer? That...

yes, so correspondence consists in acting within the world. That stuff about truth not being a property of a statement @"creativesoul", is muddled.

Using the word “correspondence” Only gives us a name for the posited relationship between word and thing. It does not explain anything.

which is to say that it is being true that makes statements true.

"There are no mermaids" is falsifiable.

Yep. Thats where I started.