Where Wittgenstein is enigmatic and full of questions, I think Austin takes too much for granted that we will see the implications of what he is doing...
This is a common misconception. I don't think Austin does himself any favors by saying he is just examining "sense perception" and not directly explai...
@"Banno" @"Ludvig" @"Corvus" @"javi2541997" @"Ciceronianus" @"frank" @"wonderer1"@"Janus" @"Richard B" Absolutely. Reacting to the fact that we can't ...
I do think it is important at some point (once we have the complete reading under our belt) to differentiate Austin from Dewey from Wittgenstein, etc....
Well, it’s not the answer that matters, it’s the desire for an “answer”: something universal, generalized, predetermined, predictable, perfectly logic...
@"Banno" @"Ludvig" @"Corvus" @"javi2541997" @"Ciceronianus" @"frank" @"wonderer1"@"Janus" @"Richard B" As an additional note on Lecture VII: Part of p...
As this is important to Austin as well—though I don’t know exactly what you are referring to when you say “that it is just a matter”—Wittgenstein keep...
Yes, math doesn’t tell us about the world. But it has qualities similar to the standard by which philosophy wishes it could judge the world, and, when...
If you do math, and I do math (competently), we come up with the same answer. It doesn’t matter who does it. It is universal, rule-driven, predictable...
I’m not sure were Austin put forward “this idea” of what we do in dreams. I was trying to show that there actually are, as he says, “recognized ways o...
@"Banno" @"J" @"Ludvig" @"Corvus" @"javi2541997" @"Ciceronianus" @"frank" @"wonderer1"@"Janus" Lecture VII is not a theory about what the word “real” ...
Oh yeah that’s probably a straight ripoff. I wouldn’t normally bring in these kinds of larger implications/conclusions except I don’t seem to be getti...
@"Banno" @"J" @"Ludvig" @"Corvus" @"javi2541997" @"Ciceronianus" @"frank" @"wonderer1"@"Janus" That people have made up their mind, or had made it up ...
I agree here, but the radical nature of it is not that Ayer is incoherent; he was chosen because of his putting the case as well as one can. Austin is...
It is a fantasy-world question, dreamed up by Ayer’s desire to have fixed, certain (direct) access to the world, even if he has to make up the terms, ...
Austin is not talking about the words awake, and dreaming: what their explanations or definitions are, how to use them in a sentence (or gather the sc...
I actually second the notion that it is important to understand Ayer’s idea of “perception” and not bring a preconceived notion to our reading, which ...
Just want to clear this up (if I can). The method of "Ordinary Language" Philosophy is not to reduce philosophy to ordinary words (Wittgenstein uses "...
@"Banno" @"J" @"Ludvig" @"Corvus" @"javi2541997" @"Ciceronianus" @"frank" @"wonderer1"@"Janus" In Sec. VI Austin is full of so much vitriol and sarcas...
Hard to make an argument without the text but I would say my reading here of Chapter IV is a start—basically Austin is saying philosophy made up the i...
I'm saying, along with Austin, that there is no correct way to consider "perception" because philosophy did not think about it, as in look into how it...
@"Banno" @"J" @"Ludvig" @"Corvus" @"javi2541997" @"Ciceronianus" @"frank" @"wonderer1"@"Janus" Sec V: I’m going to point out again the importance here...
He is not presenting a different way of thinking (another answer or theory) about this (manufactured) problem of direct or indirect access (and all th...
Well I'll leave you to it, only to say that taking these points as a matter of "semantics" is due to underestimating that he is dismantling the "class...
Philosophy created the idea of "perception" and the idea that they are "indirect" (as with Hume's appearance, Plato's shadows, etc.). That people imag...
@"Banno" @"J" @"Ludvig" @"Corvus" @"javi2541997" @"Ciceronianus" @"frank" We need to get past the picture of a process called "perception". If nothing...
@"Banno" @"J" @"Ludvig" @"Corvus" @"javi2541997" @"Ciceronianus" @"frank" I tried to take a stab at this confusion above in saying Austin is not takin...
But “creative” problem solving and “imaginative” ways of using things are based on the fact that we have had practices like holding in cups, trapping ...
@"Banno" @"J" @"Ludvig" @"Corvus" @"javi2541997" @"Ciceronianus" @"frank" I wanted to point out that part of the confusion here is that we (and most e...
@"Banno" @"J" @"Ludvig" @"Corvus" @"javi2541997" @"Ciceronianus" Having gotten through Lecture IV: this is an example of where Austin takes a deep-div...
The point about abstraction is a note on Austin's method. If we ignore all the uses of a term in all its various contexts (as Austin brings back), the...
I was not intending to suppress discussion. It just helps me to respond to the text and how we are interpreting that, which is what I am trying to foc...
This is confusing, but if we break it down: they are trying (but fail) to persuade us that we only can "directly" perceive sense datum, because of the...
Austin is specifically tearing down philosophy's framing of the issue as both direct or indirect. As he says: "It is essential, here as elsewhere, to ...
He’s not done yet, for sure. But the argument is that discussions about indirect perception make sense, but not as thought of in contrast to direct pe...
@"Banno" @“J” @"Ludvig" @"Corvus" @"javi2541997" Having finished Lecture III, I noticed that Austin continues to bring up normal cases. This is part o...
Austin’s point of showing how “indirect” perception actually works is to show that in no instance is it the opposite of what we imagine direct percept...
@"Banno" @“J” @"Ludvig" @"Corvus" @"javi2541997" I forgot to tag people in my above post, but I also wanted to bring attention to Sec. 3 on page 9 whe...
@"Banno" I think it needs to be reiterated that Austin is peeling away the logic of assuming mistakes about seeing things are evidence of a generalize...
I don’t know what you are quoting; I was referring to Austin’s lecture, which is what we are reading. I thiink it would be getting ahead of ourselves ...
Comments