You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Antony Nickles

Comments

4:00 pm CET is 7:00 am PST where I am but yeah philosophy lecture in the middle of the night is sure-fire sleep aid. I’ll try to summarize if I make i...
November 22, 2025 at 23:37
This was the whole of the invite forwarded to me; no notice necessary. Undoubtedly just listening. These are secrets Whitman would say, but not kept s...
November 22, 2025 at 07:49
FYI Sam ( @"Banno" @"Ludwig V" ) Lecture by Peter Hacker: “On Certainty Some remarks on the new edition” The Lecture will take place in ZOOM on Novemb...
November 22, 2025 at 01:48
I think this is ultimately where he lands (as Cavell will claim) and that he gets into to in the PI. I tried to post all my notes together and it was ...
November 12, 2025 at 16:50
After I give @"Ludwig V"’ a chance to comment on my response to his latest, I’m going to repost all my commentary in one post, as, by renaming the dis...
November 12, 2025 at 02:21
@"Ludwig V" Thank you for this. My hope is that I have read the words themselves correctly first and then dug deeper and let it give us everything it ...
November 12, 2025 at 00:26
@"Paine" I’m interested to hear more. The skeptic’s argument at their word appears to fly in the face of common sense, but yet to make sense to philos...
November 11, 2025 at 18:06
I agree the comparison with science is key. I don’t think the focus is on the distinction so much as that traditional philosophy wishes it had the sam...
November 11, 2025 at 16:20
I’m not sure what the “set of signs” are, that they would be different (irreducible). The things he has us say are the same. “I can’t feel your pain.”...
November 10, 2025 at 04:53
Well, without a further explanation of what “psychology” means, I’ll assume we are talking about the kind of thing the skeptic pictures as a “thought”...
November 10, 2025 at 03:27
Is this to say you think I’ve made a mistake in reading? or that you disagree with him? And, to try to say this again, I’m not arguing this is the onl...
November 10, 2025 at 00:42
I mean… it’s not gonna hurt (it is a dense 70 pages though). I hope it would help and be easier to scan through the discussion for the posts labeled S...
November 09, 2025 at 23:27
Yes, but, importantly (though not in disagreement), not a physical process, or a conceptual process structured on the criteria for an object, but the ...
November 09, 2025 at 23:00
@"Banno" @"Sam26" @"Paine" @"Ludwig V" @"Jamal" @"Manuel" @"Astrophel" @"Joshs" @"Kurt Keefner" @"Shawn" Wrap it up! I don't know who all has an inter...
November 09, 2025 at 21:08
When he asks us to consider the question, the inflection of “Why should what we do here be called ‘philosophy’?” can change either between “I don’t ca...
November 05, 2025 at 07:10
This is our desire that everything be subject to the method and implications of science, which is the basis of its facts. If you follow its method, an...
November 04, 2025 at 17:05
Yes, if a hypothesis were to be judged before being verified, authority (expertise) may put the odds in their favor, but they might not be privy to fa...
November 04, 2025 at 16:36
And of course as I am a terrible thinker that can’t imagine other arguments (nod to @"Paine"), this has blown my mind. The difference between Witt and...
November 04, 2025 at 07:21
@"Ludwig V" @"Paine" I'm going to formally rescind my claim that Witt is not discussing thinking, meaning (understanding, seeing, experiencing, using ...
November 04, 2025 at 01:32
Sorry there appears to be so much ancillary concern/interpretation here. I understand where you are coming from. In fact, philosophy is littered with ...
November 04, 2025 at 00:50
Yes, roughly. I do agree with framing it as a discussion about logic, and thus, yes, grammatical in that sense**, but not to prove the logic of, for e...
November 03, 2025 at 20:37
err
November 03, 2025 at 20:29
Well if I haven’t provided the evidence in the text (or examples) for what I read in it, then I haven’t been doing my job, but I tried to make that my...
November 03, 2025 at 17:34
Well now we’re just agreeing too much for this to be fun. But to this, I did read that Austin and Wittgenstein bristled at the mention of the other, t...
November 02, 2025 at 15:18
True, true. His method is to make the most sense of what they say even if that entails imagining a whole new world to do it. Ah but allowing for the p...
November 02, 2025 at 01:31
Just that Socrates doesn’t hear anything as important unless it meets his criteria. Obviously a poor joke. True, there is more going on than just look...
November 02, 2025 at 01:15
@"Paine" I get that there is a difference between what Witt is doing and (cognitive) linguistics or the scientific study of our ability to communicate...
November 02, 2025 at 01:04
@"Ludwig V" First instance of man-listening. I just couldn’t with the off-the-wall examples. I mean I know it’s hard to create a situation that matche...
November 01, 2025 at 17:41
@"Ludwig V" “Claim of Reason” really but that’s a tomb. “Availability of the Later Wittgenstein” I think. There’s the example of method and evaluation...
October 30, 2025 at 21:34
The skeptic has a singular need (for certainty). Witt’s method shows society’s various interests (“desires”) in our “general practices”, thus allowing...
October 30, 2025 at 19:18
Redo
October 30, 2025 at 17:53
I take all three instances as used in the sense of the first. The teacher/student examples to work out the logic of our relation to others, not the so...
October 30, 2025 at 17:34
I take it as the topic under investigation in the PI—why do we/they want this logical purity? And, not to discuss it here, but he does mention “convic...
October 30, 2025 at 16:55
@"Ludwig V" @"Joshs" @"Paine" If there must be a further explanation that all of us can give examples of what anyone would say when X, and the logic o...
October 30, 2025 at 16:13
At this point (as it is taken up in the PI) I’m putting a pin in asking the greater ramifications or other reasons why the properties of an object (ca...
October 29, 2025 at 19:05
This would require much more explanation; Cavell takes this up better than I could a number of times in the essays in “Must We Mean What We Say”. It i...
October 29, 2025 at 16:34
Agreed; he is not throwing in the towel. All I wanted to point out is that he is showing another option to compare to the skeptic’s, rather than engag...
October 29, 2025 at 15:56
@"Ludwig V" @"Joshs" @"Paine" Section 20 - Finale! (p. 70-74) This mention of “opinion” brings us back to where “The solipsist… is not stating an opin...
October 29, 2025 at 15:48
Great quote; boring ol’ Kant can zing ya. "This method… to investigate whether the object of the dispute is not perhaps a mere mirage at which each wo...
October 29, 2025 at 05:31
@"Paine" This is absolutely how it should be, and Witt does say that we can always layer on more complexity, and he himself regularly adds on or chang...
October 28, 2025 at 19:50
Bbbb
October 28, 2025 at 05:23
@"Ludwig V" Agreed; getting fixated on the topic of the example is a big problem, and of course at a certain point it gets to be a matter of what impl...
October 27, 2025 at 22:57
thhhttht
October 27, 2025 at 22:29
@"Paine" @"Ludwig V" thanks for making it seem possible. I take him to be saying that we could agree to symbolically hold an “exceptional place” (p.66...
October 27, 2025 at 19:48
@"Paine" Still working on the finale, but procrastinating. The mental image does not impart life to the sign, but the sign is still “dead”, i.e., basi...
October 26, 2025 at 19:54
Your point that all philosophers, in some way or other, do, or may, not want to be understood is well taken. Cavell claims the realist, idealist, and ...
October 26, 2025 at 06:15
I think we might say that “use”, in terms of that concept, is not interpreted, but maybe this is just to say: what do we consider (interpret) as a use...
October 26, 2025 at 06:04
@"Ludwig V" @"Joshs" This is a good distinction to point out. The "us" and "we" being both in contrast to the skeptic ("them"), but also plural, which...
October 25, 2025 at 09:35
@"Joshs" @"Paine" @"Ludwig V" Section 18B - “use” (oh boy, here we go…) p.65 (I can’t face 66-69 yet.) One of the I think most misunderstood technical...
October 24, 2025 at 09:22
@"Joshs" @"Paine" @"Ludwig V" Section 19 - p. 66-69 uhhhh… what?
October 24, 2025 at 00:29