Re: [analytic-borders] Re: Human Nature
bruce denner
> My philosophical position is that we think and
> speak within a world-picture that we inherit.
I can't imagine anyone disputing that. What's the
alternative? Also, why call it "philosophical'? Seems
like common sense,
> As Wittgenstein pointed out, there must be grounds
> for doubting something.
Remember the dangers in "must be." You know full well
that there are folks who doubt without knowing why.
You might say that they are using the word "doubt"
incorrectly. But that doesn't change their experience;
nor does it seem right to impose your definition. If
one sticks with description, it is simply the case
that folks report doubting without justification.
> The world-picture is not philosophical.
Is that consistent with your opening remark..."My
philo position is..? Then again, I feel that
"world-picture" is a sociological term that has become
common sense and is neutral to philosophy. And, if as
you say..."I learned to talk about the world-picture
by reading Wittgenstein's comments on it"...then,
obviously the commentary can be wrong, alterable...
> Do you want to say that one cannot discover or
> describe something from the inside? For example,
> if you wake up in a cage, you can't describe the
cage?
You wouldn't know it was a cage if you were never
outside it. But outside there is no framework, and,
hence, no intelligibility. Inside, there would be
something that limited us, the wall. I agree we sense
limits. But, we are always so sure that we have
reached the limit till some genius "moves the wall."
I'm waiting for us to move faster than the speed of
light.
> It's true that grammar changes over time, but I have
> no discernible impact on that process.
I go with that. I believe Shakespear had a powerful
impact. Freud and Einstein too. Freud altered the
grammer of causation. Me and you, Gary, will just have
to go along with it.
> Bruce, have you ever read an anthropological study
of whether a >tribe believes that hands exist?
Yes (in a sense, questioning "existence". You might
want to look at Cioffi's _Wittgenstein on Freud and
Frazer._ But an anthropological question isn't a
philosophical one, necessarily.
> Would they call a universal belief ethnocentric?
Anthropologists question the concept of "universal
belief." Of course, like LW, they are concerned with
differences. You might say that their categories are
universal, viz., food, sex,...but there is nothing
transcendental about them, just are tools...
> I take the independent existence of things for
granted. Just as in >a basketball game I took for
granted "a player shall not run with >the ball without
dribbling it." A rule is a rule to play by.
I agree. The rule, things exists independently, has
deep cultural roots. But it it is not universal. Kant
had lots to say about it, so do the Buddhists. But you
make it a practical issue. "If you think that this
knife doesn't have an independent existence, then
watch me plunge it..."
We've been at this point lots of times. That water is
wet and rocks are hard isn't a philosophical question.
It's a practical one. We have yet to come to a
understanding of what a philo question is. Did you
read the DRT Posts? They banished one of our guys. I
think because they have a understanding of philo that
is radically different from late LW. More later on...
> Bruce replied:
>>Can you conceive of non-empirical doubts?
>
> "I doubt that other minds exist." But then the
> question becomes does this doubt make sense?
And that's because for you all doubt is empirical? I'm
asking. Obviously, that sort of doubt isn't an
empirical one.
>When I played basketball, I played without
speculating about the >existence of the game or its
rules.
Right, practical affairs require a practical attitude.
I guess one philosophical position is "be practical,
don't worry."
Clearly, while that attitude is consistent with a
quality life in some domains, it doesn't serve us well
across the board. To me, that's a cardinal feature of
a philo position. It is not a question of whether "the
world actually works that way" but rather "whether we
ought to work that way." What is good for playing
basketball may not be good may not be good for
resolving human conflict.
The DRT folks think Realism is accurate and
anti-realism is wrong, in the empirical sense of being
consistent with the data. But I find that Realism is
compelling in some contexts and not in others.
Clearly, I differ from you, philosophically, in that I
hold that there are no limits except the ones we set.
There are no rules except the ones we follow.
Yes, I can't leap from my deck to the moon. There is
gravity and thank God for it. I don't think anything
of philosophical interest lies in defying the laws of
physics. It's the laws of man I wonder about.
I'm off to Budapest, on the Russia, returning July
16...
bruce
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/9rHolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
---
http://analytic.ontologically.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/analytic-borders/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/analytic-borders/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
analytic-borde...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Ron Allen
For some reason--I am not sure what--I got quite a laugh out of this
exchange:
RRO...@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 6/13/04 7:59:17 PM, blro...@yahoo.com writes:
>
>>Gary, your two posts are the clearest statement of you
>>philosophical position thus far:
>>
>>The world is the way it is no matter we word it. We
>>start with simple descriptions of what is, theorize
>>how it works, and then confirm with further
>>observations. This is the viewpoint of empirical
>>psychology, my home discipline.
>>
>
>Well, Bruce, that's how everyone views the world
>in everyday life. It isn't my philosophical position.
>My philosophical position is that we think and
>speak within a world-picture that we inherit.
>
Thanks guys!
--Ron
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/9rHolB/TM
bruce denner
What is the joke_-
bruce
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/9rHolB/TM