Luke

I give it plenty of credit. Nitpick all you want. I'm not going to precede every instance of "use" with the word "current". Take it as given.

Okay. Don't worry, I won't bother trying to bring back the phrase "everyday use" to its everyday use.

I don't see why the anthropological reading cannot also be the subtractive reading. I consider it strange that Wittgenstein would have some specialise...

I would appreciate if you could explain how rules can determine use but not meaning. I don't recall Wittgenstein discussing this later in the text.

I wasn't aware this was at issue, given that it was an inference I made from your statements: You initially stated that rules determine proper and imp...

Perhaps I was not clear enough, but when I asked "What's the difference?" in response to your distinction between following a rule and following along...

Suppose I ask: "What are they doing?" and you answer ''Following the practice", "What is the practice?" "What they are doing". No less clear, but no d...

I'm not going to play a guessing game regarding your views, particularly since you provided only a very brief reply to my previous post on the matter....

Google dictionary defines a rule as: "one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particu...

If Wittgenstein shows that "rules can and do play different roles in language", then clearly there are "rules...in language". These rules must govern ...

There is also Baker and Hacker's account of Wittgenstein's use of 'grammar':

For a very basic understanding (and because it was easily accessible):

This is not Wittgenstein's idea of grammar.

What sort of rule might this be? Then how can it be that: If the meaning of a word is found in its (proper?) use, and if the rules determine proper us...

Perhaps this is different to what I was saying in my previous post, or different to what you took me to be saying, but couldn't you substitute "means"...

Sorry if I'm being dense, but it appears that the rule for the signposts is also what the signposts mean. For example, 'England>' means 'this way to E...

Fair enough, and it's a caveat worth noting. However, I had already adopted this Wittgensteinian viewpoint when asking the question, so I had already ...

I trust that you are using the generic "you" here, as I was only trying to get a better handle on the section. I thought the article might be helpful ...

I can't argue with your assumptions.

Yes, you just made an argument for creation ex nihilo with your photons example. Otherwise, it remains the case that "creation without time itself...s...

Then you must allow the same for presentism, and your previous argument fails. What makes the first impossible?

Even though creation without time seems impossible?

But you just said "creation without time itself...seems impossible". It's as though you have one rule for eternalists and another for presentists.

I'm pretty sure that is called going into the past. If you say so. I guess that also rules out your creator of time then...?

What do you take this to mean? I'm unclear on what the "always" is supposed to add. I note that the author uses an example wherein time has a beginnin...

Thanks again. While trying to get a better understanding, I came across an article by Hans Sluga which gives a detailed account of Wittgenstein's 'sur...

I don't see that presentists need to make any commitments regarding cause and effect. Again, it's not a part of presentism. But what I had in mind was...

That's just repeating the same assertion. It's not proof. Presentists don't need to accept the assumption about past existence - it's not part of pres...

Let''s say I don't accept your assertion that the present would not exist unless the past did exist. How are you going to prove that? "Only now always...

I don't know, it's your idea not mine. If you believe the past did exist then you believe it no longer does exist and that it therefore does not exist...

Presentism and eternalism are about temporal existence. A creator outside of temporal existence doesn't count as a temporal existent. "All time" for a...

I think I understand. Thanks.

I don't know, maybe your timeless creator of time came before it. What came before E if it has a start? Presentism makes no claims about the existence...

I note that you did not answer my question of why something other than 'only now exists'. Assuming there to be a start of time is not really an answer...

Why must there be a start of time?

Why must something other than 'only now exists'?

I thought you were arguing the opposite. Why can't presentism have this too?

How does 'only now exists' imply that 'there was a start of time'? Furthermore, if this is a problem for presentism, then isn't it equally a problem f...

How? This is possibly an issue for 'there is a start of time', but it is independent of 'only now exists'. If we assume that 'only now exists', then w...

Perhaps I'm taking this out of context, or perhaps I'm just misunderstanding Wittgenstein, but this strikes me as not completely true. What I have in ...

I haven't read all the replies, so apologies if I'm repeating something: An odd way to phrase it - 'always existed'? That's not how presentism is typi...

Thank you, and great post!

I wouldn't describe Wittgenstein as a 'linguistic metaphysician', so I'm not sure who you are describing. I don't think that he has a philosophical "s...

I don't consider the ideal of the PI to be about anything 'spiritual'. It is about a (mis)conception long held by philosophers regarding the aims of t...

I didn't say this was bullshit. I said that your attempt to collapse the distinction between "saying" and "doing" was bullshit. Yes, saying is a form ...

How can the same thing be both good and bad? What same thing? Your attempt to collapse the distinction between "saying" and "doing" is bullshit, desig...

You're saying that there are only two "purposes" of language use: for understanding and for misunderstanding; for good and for evil? Yeah, okay. First...