Luke

I tend to agree. Thanks for your response.

Okay then. Well, thanks for disrupting the discussion to advise us that we're not discussing it properly, and then leaving without telling us how to d...

Good post. You are right to point out that Wittgenstein is arguing against the view "that "primary elements" are intended by those philosophers who po...

Since he says little about "primary elements" and speaks much more about simples and composites from 46-48, then I disagree that it's merely a "digres...

§48. W considers a language-game which conforms to the account from the Theaetetus which is presented at §46, in which names stand for primary element...

44. Having previously argued that names do not require a bearer to be used in the language-game, Wittgenstein now changes tack and asks us to imagine ...

Thanks, Valentinus. Yes, you're right. Wittgenstein is challenging these common philosophical assumptions. I can't easily tell whether this is a criti...

I would prefer to focus on discussing the text together rather than spend time responding to barely-supported naysaying. But I admire your passion! §3...

I don't have much time, but I was asked for my opinion of Terrapin's Station's previous post, so I was not speaking to the text there Right, I broadly...

Terrapin appears to want to have it both ways, appearing to say that meaning can be private even if it's also public. I'm not convinced. Terrapin spea...

I was probably unclear. I was referring to the behaviours which accompany attending to the shape or attending to the colour during the giving/hearing ...

Fair enough, I hope you might be able to convince me of your view. Thanks for the acknowledgement, Sam, which has encouraged me to write some more and...

He only suggests that one can imagine it, but even if you can't imagine it, it's a minor detail. The point of this section is in relation to use of th...

I beg your pardon, admin?

If you are referring to my account of your argument, then: If you are referring to whether or not your argument implies our interest, it's about our m...

What did I insert into the argument that was not there? SX's argument is that MP cannot explain why our mathematics is but "an infinitesimal subset" o...

I find the paper's attempted refutation to be unsuccessful. The author says if M is too large then it is uninteresting. But what the author means to s...

MP posits the existence of a realm of independent, abstract, mathematical objects. Why should this ontology be required to "explain why math is the wa...

Put it this way: Why should mathematical platonism be entirely invalidated by its supposed inability to account for an infinitesimal subset of itself?

Mathematics is the way that it is because of its interest or usefulness to us, surely, so interest is still there in your P1.

I don't know. It just sounds a bit like bemoaning the fact that mathematical platonism is unable to tell us which mathematical facts are interesting t...

So the argument goes: 1. Mathematical platonism is the view that mathematical reality exists by itself, independently from our own intellectual activi...

To try and clarify why I remain unconvinced, consider the author's synopsis of his paper: So, M is the "platonic world" of mathematical facts. The aut...

Except I found the author to be saying that the tree is not blue, and he did not tell us why. The author appears only to assert, or to assume the trut...

I'm no expert on the subject, or even a (good) philosopher, but I tend to agree with Pneumenon here. The author appears to argue that 'Mathematical Pl...

Thanks Posty, and yes, read more Wittgenstein!

Perhaps you will agree, but there's nothing (no thing) to describe.

A study of this statement (and others like it?) can be found here, although I didn't bother to read too much of it. A possibly more esteemed opinion o...

Who is claiming that time isn't real?

To live, perchance to sleep?

I assume he's talking about attendance records.

I understand your comparison between 'beetle' and 'soul', but, unlike the word 'beetle', the word 'soul' is the name of a thing in our language and ac...

You appear to consider the use of the word 'soul' as equivalent to Wittgenstein's 'beetle' because one person doesn't know what the next person has in...

Where did you say this? I don't get it. You're saying that it is incorrect because it is neither correct or incorrect? We already have a word "pain" w...

This is different to your earlier claim, where you said that "Christians generally use the word soul incorrectly". Now you are saying that their use o...

If your concern is that we, as a community, have no way of determining that “the thing we are referring to is the same thing”, then it sounds a lot li...

I don't have much time to respond, but would you say your criticism regarding the word 'soul' equally applies to words like 'unicorn' or 'if'? Are we ...

Hi Sam I'm glad we agree that sense does not require a referent. However, it seems to be the lack of a referent which leads you to assert that the Chr...

Many words have no referent (e.g. 'the', 'of', 'if', 'then' or names of fictional entities) but this doesn't make the use of these terms incorrect.

It might be incumbent on you to demonstrate this. But seriously, how do Christians use this word incorrectly, or how is it like Wittgenstein's beetle?...

In that case, isn't the concept of a (some) thing required in order to individuate it and understand it?

I'll try again: isn't this just direct realism?

Nietszche's view (of God's view) seems to be direct realism more or less; or the unmediated perception it presupposes. I don't wish to dampen the enth...

I don't really understand your "revenge paradox". As I understand it, the paradox of the Liar Paradox is that IF "This sentence is false" is true then...

This sentence.

If you accept that the concept belief takes its meaning from public behaviours, then what of your "private beliefs"? If you are merely saying that the...

Okay, but it seems much more reasonable that the word "belief" gets its meaning from, and refers to, public behaviours in much the same way that sensa...

You said it!

So you assert that no statement is indubitable (except that one?), then question what indubitable means, then claim a distraction? No, it's not import...

I dunno, mate. You said it. You tell me.