Banno

This is what works in formal logical systems; it's that domain of discourse.

You are already playing games. Essences. Bah.

Meh. What's important here is that there is more than one way to use such words. Pretending that there is one true way is problematic.

Maybe. More likely it will go nowhere.

Do you think that there is only one way to use the word; one correct meaning?

WHAT is being asked here is not a profound metaphysical question needing deep philosophical insight. All that is being asked is how one ought use the ...

That's just wrong, Harry. A reference to an act of greeting has an entirely different structure. Something like: "Paul greeted Harry on his way into w...

It would surprise me if we did not mostly agree.

Dictionaries tell you how to use words; a useful thing. Depends on the use. Peter and I had a quiet chat about the other Peter.

Indeed, the right answer. Now, notice that this is different to saying that words refer? Consider, if you like, what the word "peter" refers to.

You should; that would be using words well.

If not all words refer, then meaning cannot be the very same thing as reference. Yes? Unless not all words have meaning... Which way would you go?

Good; so you agree with me that not all words refer. That's a start.

Easy. To what does "Hello" refer?

Then it falls to you to show what the more is, beyond mere use.

Human interaction can include their interactions with slabs, apples and stars.

Witti discarded ostensive definition? Not quite. He pointed out that to understand an ostensive definition is already to understand the language game ...

Better:"Language game" shows that speech or writing has meaning in the context of human interaction. Better still:"Language game" has meaning in the c...

Talking about Wittgenstein in terms of concepts shows a deep misunderstanding.

Essence becomes use becomes measurement becomes agreement on a sign. Then throw in a language of thought. thanks for your time, Apo.

So its not worth trying to find a point of agreement. A shame. Small steps, then - in this, is it that there is a distinction between the living and t...

I had to grit my teeth in order to work my way through that post, Apo. So if we set aside for the moment your misguided assessment of modern logic, do...

Take a look at this: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1349/wittgensteins-mysticism-or-not- A fine example of how we can get on doing things w...

Pretty good. Yes, I think that you are on the money. I might reference your item elsewhere. edit: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/68...

And how you hang on to your outmoded logic of essences. Can we do better than just trade insults? I put the case that biology succeeds despite not hav...

Ernestm has a clear approach, worth reading. However I was struck by this: One of the obvious and interesting characteristics of language is that from...

This, also: http://www.astro.iag.usp.br/~janot/aga0316/artigos/DEFINING%20%20LIFE.pdf

This: https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life%27s_working_definition.html Especially the first question to Dr. Cleland.

There does not seem to be anything stopping one language game to be about another.

Perhaps as presenting a neat simplification we can use to understand how language works?

Hm. I wonder how widely known the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative is amongst readers. http://en.people.cn/n3/2017/0428/c90000-9209096.html

It is no problem to talk about a natural language using that very language. So one can truthfully say that this sentence starts with the letter "S" an...

The idea is to draw attention to specific curious characteristics of some of the things we do with words. When one plays chess, one undertakes to abid...

2+2=4 we can generalise this to a+a=2a Does algebra transcend arithmetic? Or is it just about arithmetic?

You are simply identifying use and token. They are not the same.

What is required for deductive logic is that the use on the left be the same as the use on the right.

An interesting post. First off, as a curtesy, let's avoid phrases like "...you don't actually get it"; To my eye, you don't actually get it, either. T...

Indeed; that is quite on purpose, so that it corresponds to a conjunctive or disjunctive normal form - as any definition must. But of course we can sp...

I gather from the parenthetic comment that you are yourself not too happy with this terminology. So let me prod that a bit: What is the "communicative...

Stop there. I don't disagree with that. Of course words do not have an "essence in an ostensive sense". While I don't much like your use of "apophatic...

Not worthy of you, Apo. Can you explain what Meta meant? Is he just claiming that deductive logic relies on explicit definitions? What is it that I am...

Much of the critique here rolls around on my use of common. I meant it as shared, not mundane. So there is nothing here to stop out common use of "lif...

Hu?

I've been discussing essences with him for years; it seems to me he has some sort of reified view of essences; although sometimes he talks about them ...

Tell me, Apo, how do you get on with Meta? I can't say I've paid much attention to discussions between you two. Are you in agreement as to the nature ...

Excellent post!

Yep, it's a simple point. So why all the fuss? So you say. Naive realist I'm fine with; but what is a transcendent solipsist?

Where do you look, in order to determine that metabolism and replication are necessary and sufficient for life? Presumably, at things that are alive. ...

Let's take care not to confuse meaning and essence. Sure, looking to the meaning of the words used in an argument is important, as you say. What I am ...

Harris is talking about embryonic stem-cell research, but the points are salient to the discussion here. Pretty well makes a mash out of this whole th...