Marchesk

We don't learn about logic or math from observing the world. They developed out of our conceptual reasoning. As such, they are a priori. Empirical kno...

That's a good point. However, the subjective/objective split still leaves transcendental idealism on the table.

I'm sympathetic to that. Notice that in these cases ordinary word use is based on faulty assumptions, and so getting clear would actually mean elimina...

Sure. Linguistic analysis would be good for that. We might want to get rid of "in here" and "out there" in philosophical language because it can be mi...

I don't know how experiences can be entirely public. I have to tell you about my dreams or inner dialog for you to know anything about them. Unlike th...

Right, and I'm not a solipsist. We do understand a lot of each other's experiences. But not all. We also misunderstand. I don't know to what extent I ...

Landru, is that you?

I thought empirical was perceptual. What you're talking about sounds deductive. Doesn't logic work the same way?

Math isn’t perceived. It’s conceptual. We can apply it to the empirical with great results, which raises interesting questions.

I’m not entirely sure this is true for science. Consider some of the speculative theories in physics, debates involving thought experiments, different...

It sounds to me like some people's interpretation, even in this very thread, of the later Wittgenstein is that he was trying to cure the philosopher i...

I understand that you don't. Do you know whether Wittgenstein thought so?

Sounds poetic. I like it.

The logical positivists*? Carnap, Quine, Stove? But I had fans of Wittgenstein in mind, not necessarily professional philosophers. edit: *positivists ...

How the words were used then or now doesn't help us when we want to know whether it's the sun moving or the Earth turning, or something else that acco...

Obligatory: In Soviet Russia, dog explains you!

Sure, but that's a lot different than the claim that linguistic analysis can potentially dissolve philosophy problems across the board. That philosoph...

The point here being that showing how the words sunset or time is used in an ordinary setting doesn't help with ontological or epistemological questio...

Come on, we all know the origin of those words were based on how people thought the sun moved. Sure it can mean that also, but that isn't the concern ...

Nah, I'm a scientific realist. Thus even though the sun is said to rise and set, the reality is that the Earth turns, and ordinary language is wrong, ...

Whether a linguistic analysis of the philosophy of time can dissolve it, or leave it with the physicists. Which would mean it's a mistake to ask philo...

Yeah, but what is the argument here? At the very least, we want a scientific explanation of time. That still seems to leave some questions. A horse wa...

No, but my wondering about the nature of time has little to do with whether it's useful for getting to work. Not everything is of pragmatic concern. S...

The biggest challenge I see to your position is the ethics and how to live branches of philosophy. To borrow from Simon Blackburn, if I think fox hunt...

Well, if we're just focusing on the philosophy of time, it seems natural to me that humans would eventually start asking these sorts of questions.

Speaking of physics, QM does present an area of philosophical debate which isn't born of ordinary language. Maybe it will be resolved at a future time...

I've forgotten the context of this side debate. That doesn't sound promising for resolving philosophical debates. Reminds me of mereology and sorites....

I recall that 100+ page long thread.

Right, well we would need some metric for deciding which issues have been dissolved, which ones look dissolvable, which ones we're not sure about, and...

I'm sure some issues are amenable to this. Truth might be one of them. But all of philosophy? It only takes one exception.

Sure, and yesterday/tomorrow works well in language, but if I'm asking you as a philosopher as to whether to finish building the time machine in my ga...

Sure, but are you only attempting to show how a linguistic analysis would proceed? I'm not doubting that you can analyze language for any philosophica...

That remains to be seen. But surely change is still left behind? Or are you in agreement with Parmenides that change doesn't exist?

*Must. Resist. Mentioning. QM.* Measurement probably means something exists to be measured.

Okay, so I think there is no disagreement that we do perceive change, events taking place, that sort of thing. And form this we have a notion of time ...

Right, but change is in the horse category of being there, not the unicorn one of not being. Notice that you even use spacetime as the backdrop for se...

Unicorns are not things in spacetime. They're fictional.

I assume you know? Maybe we only notice it with a temperature change or air movement. But sure, a fish doesn't feel wet in the way we feel wet, I woul...

Something like what it means to feel air around your skin, I suppose.

Well, a fish can dry out on land, so I guess you mean does a fish feel wet? Because certainly fish are wet in water. As for what fish feel, notice tha...

I'm going to disagree strongly with that. For starters, we say unicorns don't exist, but they do have a role in our language. But we do say horses exi...

But what would this mean? Presumably it doesn't mean seeing the world the way pre-philosophical people saw it, or the average person ignorant of philo...

Let's start with the first item: 1. Philosophy of time: presentism, block universes etc. So, our concept of time developed out of noticing that things...

That's well put. Let's go with it. So if we us fdrake's list, the question is whether all of those topics will cease to be philosophical once the righ...

It seems like you haven't quite cured the itch yet. Maybe rub some more analysis on it. But I suppose on your view philosophy could be seen as a neces...

You realize that's a really, really strong claim, right? It's certainly worth discussing.

My knee jerk reaction against Banno's claim is that it sounds like getting clear on how language is misused to create philosophical problems will eith...

Could there be teams of several people that take turns replying? Like three people strongly for and three strongly against or something?

Preliminary: what is meant by "philosophy of language" and how would it be understood to cover all of philosophy?

I'm not prepared for a formal debate. It's just that those debates seemed to be well structured, and this sort of topic has the chance of being all ov...