Janus

Which is pretty much what I wrote earlier:

I'm also partial to Wittgenstein's idea that we know the meaning of a proposition when we know what would necessarily be the case if it were to be tru...

That makes sense to me. :ok:

OK, I thought your statement that the article presupposes much represented your own view.

This seems to indicate an interesting approach. If the Liar were changed to "This proposition is false" we might ask "which proposition?". There is a ...

As I said I don't have the background to read that article without a great deal of effort. So, would you do me the favour of explaining what presuppos...

I don't see what you think is true here. Here you have two different sentences which are referring to each other; which seems to be just a more elabor...

Cheers, will have a read. :cool: And thanks, your questions have led me to see this issue in more comprehensive and explicit ways. :smile: Edit: I too...

OK, but I never said that self-referentiality per se must lead to contradiction, did I? Also I would make the further point that the "This sentence is...

OK, so the valid distinction then seems to be that possibilities are discovered and (novel) actualities are invented. I see no further distinction bet...

"This sentence is true" is nonsense; it is like saying "This car is true". "This sentence is about itself" just says that the sentence refers to itsel...

In the case of "this sentence has five words" it is not the semantic content, but the structure, of the sentence which is being referenced. The struct...

As I see it the problem with the "liar" sentence is its self-referentiality. You can coherently say "that sentence is false", no problem and every suc...

For me the "space of possibilities" has either a logical or physical sense; the senses being everything we can coherently imagine as potentially exist...

If you don't think the distinction makes sense in relation to "abstract ideas", what about in the context of technology? Was the steam engine invented...

What seems possible to us, is just anything we can coherently, and with logical consistency, imagine. But those possibilities aren't "out there" somew...

The words that ideas are expressed in already exist, so the words are perhaps rightly thought to be in some sense discovered, but I think more aptly s...

No you don't see; you're wrong again. I didn't, and still dont, see what you wrote after the so-called "ironic answer" as any kind of answer to the qu...

So, for you the legal answer just is the ethical answer. Incredibly subtle of you!

I don't have to come up with an answer to that, because I am not in a position of power. The point is that, as an extremely problematic ethical questi...

No worries then. :smile:

Yes, that seems obvious; but to me the more interesting question then would be as to what should be done with dissenters.

You think I don't know that? Essence is just such a "theoretical abstraction"; although I would rather say "formal" than "theoretical". No, this has n...

The point is that there is not at all merely one ethical choice being made. One law could be imposed, yet there would still be dissent. The ethical qu...

I think we are talking at cross purposes. You seem to be trying to hypothesize the origin of ethical impulses, and I'm just concerned with describing ...

The idea of essence is the idea of something absolutely unique and determinate. It is like identity; a purely formal concept. Concrete concepts, such ...

:lol: I'll pay that. It's better than my banana comment.

All I'm saying is that precepts will be determined by basic assumptions. I do think there are some more or less universal precepts, though. For exampl...

:rofl: Fuck, man, is that your cat? If so, what have you done to it? Is it trying to imitate those bananas perhaps?

What motivates individuals in their ethical choices is diverse; there are no "one size fits all" ethical precepts. If I accept that I live in a dissip...

I would not presume to speak for Banno, but for me ethics is the inquiry into how best to live. It has nothing to do with metaphysical idealism. It is...

There is no Positivist interpretation of Wittgenstein. Any scholar worth his salt knows that W distanced himself from the Logical Positivists.

Sure, I haven't argued otherwise. Wittgenstein thinks there are ethical, aesthetical and spiritual dimensions of human life about which nothing can be...

In regard to managing our impacts on the environment, yes, certainly. Science doesn't tell us what to do, but it informs us about the effects of what ...

Yes, and it certainly seems as though the asking of that question itself determines much of human behavior. For me the question as to whether we are "...

The question about that distinction seems to be a fair one to me. Despite whatever may be thought to ultimately constrain us, we are certainly capable...

Perhaps it could only tells us what we will do if it doesn't tell us what we will do? :wink:

I think one of stumbling blocks with discussion of these kinds of matters may be the indeterminate nature of the terms of discussion. So, the example ...

I see metaphysics as the investigation of what we can, with logical consistency and coherency, imagine about the structure of what we think of as "the...

Is this right? I would have thought we can be unconscious of thoughts just as we can of perceptions. So, what I meant here relates to the above. We ca...

Ha, a fellow lazy arguer! I did try to explain, though, but due to my laziness the explanation turned out to be inapt.

I know that concept of fate is different than determinism; but I thought you must be thinking of fate as determinism because I didn't imagine anyone t...

Long version: If by "fate" you mean determinism, then you would either be determined to see the doctor or not; in which case you should do everything ...

What I meant though was that I don't want to complicate this exchange by dealing with too many issues at once. Yes, if we employ different definitions...

The way you speak of phenomena here makes me think of science. We can say that science gives clarity to one general kind of phenomena; science deals w...

:up:

You're not getting what I've been saying; I'm saying even accepting that what is presented is true evidence that cannot be explained empirically, the ...

That's true and as I said it amounts to confirmation bias, not free inquiry. Which is fine as long as that is admitted.

You're simply assuming the truth of one of a number of possible explanatory theories. The theory would not be proven even if all the children's report...

There was a study carried out by someone called Stevenson (if memory serves) which purported to show that there are many cases of children remembering...