@"jkg20" was previously trying to work out the unknown aspect of pain you claimed there to be, other than our public expressions and private sensation...
What's the point? You said: "I have a feeling which I judge as unpleasant and I call it pain". I asked why you judge it as unpleasant rather than plea...
Why do you judge it as "unpleasant" rather than "pleasant"? The topic of the video is pain, including its known causes. Weren't you asking what causes...
Let's be clear here: do you lack knowledge of the cause or the effect? You don't know what pain is or you don't know what causes it? Regarding the eff...
You said earlier that it was an "unpleasant feeling". Now you don't know what it is? As for the cause of pain, science and medicine have some understa...
I have no idea why you would expect Wittgenstein's philosophy to help you identify when people are pretending to be in pain. This is not something Wit...
Isn't the point to say/show what lies outside, or at the limit, of this picture of atomic facts/language/the world, such as the human subject, ethics,...
I may have misspoken when I stated earlier: "What is hidden, if anything, is what pain feels like for me, compared to what it feels like for you. Is i...
I had considered this sort of thing, but I wonder if it isn't more of a comparison - a simile or metaphor - rather than a direct description. It remin...
But surely "debates such as realism/idealism" do "depend on our language usage". If we are going to debate e.g. "the nature of the world", then we hav...
This certainly made me re-think my position. One way of looking at it is to re-visit what Wittgenstein says at §304. He admits that there is a differe...
Could you explain how the beetle can be shown? I understand it to represent the subjective aspect of a sensation, or in philosophical jargon: qualia. ...
And therefore, we do not construe the grammar of the expression of sensation on the model of 'object and name'? Seems convoluted. I don't follow how t...
That's an interesting take, but how do you reconcile it with the closing line of §293: "if we construe the grammar of the expression of sensation on t...
Your "obvious rejoinder" could be any subjective sensation, but I think it misses the point of Wittgenstein's example. It is not about an inability to...
It's a good thing I only referred to real pain behaviour then, I guess. Wittgenstein is silent on the issue of real vs. mock pain behaviour at §293 be...
As stated in my previous post, I see the issue of Wittgenstein's beetle as attacking the view that each of us knows what 'pain' means only from our ow...
I don't see this as the issue that Wittgenstein seeks to address with his beetle in the box, which may explain why you find his so-called response(s) ...
You are overlooking the crucial conditional. Again. You are ignoring that the word has a use in these people's language. I don't know whether it's a p...
Where do you infer this from? Everyone uses the word "beetle" to refer to some unknown, inaccessible thing inside a box. You seem to accept this. It d...
I'm talking about Wittgenstein's example at §293, in summary: 1. Suppose that everyone has a box with something in it which we call a "beetle". 2. Sup...
Wittgenstein doesn't say that you name it. He says that the word has a use in these people's language. Anyone can learn the language, of course, and l...
The word could be used in this way, to deceive, but it need not be. However, it has been your claim that the word can only be used in this way if the ...
Again, I did not mention that the deaf person is "referring to sounds which he or she is hearing". All I am talking about, and all I have been talking...
You never answered my earlier question: Is it deceptive for a deaf person to talk about sounds and for a blind person to talk about colours? What's th...
Do you see your own contradiction in the position that it is irrelevant to the use of the word when there is something in the box but relevant to the ...
I didn't change any terms. You said: "I agree with the first part here, "the particular contents of the particular box is irrelevant"." I didn't make ...
See PI 290-291 regarding your use of "description" here. We are talking about the use of the word 'beetle'. As you have agreed, the contents of the bo...
Simply by using the word 'beetle' one is "practising deception"? Are deaf people practising deception when they talk about sounds, and blind people wh...
What is in one box is not necessarily different from what is in another; only that nobody can know what is in another's box. Regardless, if everyone a...
That's not necessarily the way we use words. Unless you have a supporting argument that it is? But I can think of a few words that are used in neither...
Wittgenstein begins with the supposition that everyone has "a box with something in it which we call a 'beetle'". Nobody can ever look into anyone els...
This could be restated as 'whatever is possible is actual', which implies that there are no other possibilities except for what happens. However, this...
It seems nonsensical to me because I'm unable to make sense of it. What does it mean to say that no-thing is longer than no-thing (or that no philosop...
I meant nothing personal by it. I was just trying to emphasise what I see as a problem with your OP argument. Ignoring that it looks like an illicit m...
There is no philosopher smarter than @"TheMadFool". There is no philosopher dumber than Plato. Therefore, no philosopher is smarter than no philosophe...
Comments