Hmm. I wonder if this is more about Plato than Socrates?This is the only mention of her in Plato's dialogues. — Fooloso4
...a stud person for national farming companies.
Is that some UKian agricultural usage which is very different from USian usage? — wonderer1
Otherwise, by your account, Socrates actively sort out her company. Xanthippe may have been making the point that Socrates would have no further opportunity to educate his friends after the hemlock, perhaps in an attempt to have him make an effort to save himself.And, at least in the case of the Phaedo, unwanted. — Fooloso4
One group just prefers to use the verb "to see" only when talking about seeing distal objects and the other group just prefers to use the verb "to see" only when talking about seeing mental phenomena. — Michael
I'll offer you the same answer as given to Frank, above. Blind, illiterate mutes can herd cows. You account seems a bit ableist...Consider that we are all deaf, illiterate mutes. Naive realists claim that distal objects and their properties are constituents of our experience and indirect realists claim that they're not. — Michael
recognising it as a cow consists in not running for the gate because it's a bull, keeping a eye out for pats on the surrounding ground, counting how many cows there are as opposed to kangaroos, and so on. That is it consist in interacting with the cow and with other things. You know it is a cow by those interactions - indeed, knowing it is a cow is those interactions.So you're looking at a cow. Do you recognize it as a cow? Or just think you recognize it? Knowing that it's called a "cow" doesn't make any difference. There is no fact about which rule you've been following all this time. Other people can't help you with that. — frank
It's not obvious that this follows from your previous paragraph. Yes, dealing with cows requires there to be cows, if that is what you are claiming. But you seem to want some Kantian transcendence here? I have a vantage point.Therefore perception has to start with innate confidence in a world circumscribed by space and time, where you, the real you, reside in an unchanging spot as it all swirls around you, or you fly through it as it rests on arbitrary x-y-z axes. — frank
Well, here's the puzzle: did you recognise it, or just think you recognised it? Dejà vu?It's puzzling that I could have recognized the smell as something I'd experienced before. — frank
Perhaps. That's another multifaceted issue. But all the more grist for the mill.Kripke shows that it's not. — frank
But Anne may believe no such thing.Anne believes that Venus is the morning star.
the morning star = the evening star.
Therefore, Anne believes that Venus is the evening star.
Here's a characterisation in grammatical terms: When one says one sees that there is a cow in the field over there, the direct realist says we can be referring to the cow, but the indirect realist says we can refer only to the sensation-of-cow, and must rely on some form of inference to talk about the cow-in-itself.The dispute between naive realists and indirect realists concerns whether or not experience provides us with direct knowledge of the mind-independent nature of distal objects. That's not a grammatical dispute. — Michael
it's a worthy piece. There is a discussion of the change in the use of "intention", it's special philosophical uses and what Anscombe sees as the misspelling, "intension". The critique of Austin is so much the more cutting because Anscombe adopts both Austin's own style and method. She would have attended some of his sessions at Oxford.I haven't read Anscombe's paper. — Pierre-Normand
withThe epistemological problem of perception concerns whether or not distal objects and their properties are given to us in experience; it doesn't concern the direction of our attention. You appear to be looking at things in reverse. — Michael
Michael manages to only see the concept, and never the horse.Frege's conclusion "The concept horse is not a concept" was based on the same sort of trouble about different uses of expressions. What "cheval" stands for is a concept, and what "cheval" stands for is a horse; these premisses do not, however, yield the result that if Bucephalus is a horse he is a concept. Similarly, what John is said to have sent Mary is a book, and what John is said to have sent Mary is a direct object; these premisses do not yield the result that if John gave Mary a book, he gave her a direct object. — Anscombe
Even using a list of variations in a way familiar to readers of Austin.Now 'ordinary language' views and 'sense-datum' views make the same
mistake, that of failing to recognize the intentionality of sensation, though they take opposite positions in consequence. This failure comes out clearly on the part of an ordinary-language philosopher if he insists that what I say I see must really be there if I am not lying, mistaken, or using language in a "queer", extended (and therefore discountable) way.
But as I recall Austin is explicit, in Sense and Sensibilia, in avoiding commitment to direct realism per se, rather rejecting the framing of the dilemma altogether.John Austin, who opposed the view that there are two senses of "see" ac- cording as the seeing has to be veridical or not, remarked casually that there were perhaps two senses of "object of sight". I think it was in this connection that he contrasted "Today I saw a man born in Jerusalem" and "Today I saw a man shaved in Oxford" -both said in Oxford. At any rate, one says, you didn't see him born today; perhaps you did see someone being shaved. So the one description, while true of what you saw, in a sense does not give what you saw. A description which is true of a material object of the verb "to see", but which states something that absolutely or in the circumstances "you can't have seen", necessarily gives only a material object of seeing. — Anscombe
Indeed. And your attention is directed towards That.By the way, I'm presently detecting an odor that I know I've smelled before, but I can't remember what it is or what it's called. I think it may be a flower, but I don't know. That shows that you don't have to know a name for something to recognize it and be keenly aware of it. Although I have Asperger's, so I may be wired differently. — frank
As is the assumption that this needs to be pointed out. — Fooloso4
Amusing, but it's a qualitative difference like there's a qualitative difference between cubism and method acting. While you might get to watch either, the context is quite different, as is the way one thinks about each.There's a qualitative difference only in the sense that there's a qualitative difference between photorealism and cubism; it's still just paint on canvas. It's not as if in the veridical case distal objects and their properties are constituents of the experience. — Michael
Isn't that the very point at issue?It's not as if in the veridical case distal objects and their properties are constituents of the experience. — Michael
Thanks for mentioning the SPR article on the problem of perception. Tim Crane, who authored it, was the perfect person for the job. What feature of intentionalism is it that you wish to retain that you think might be compatible with disjunctivism? — Pierre-Normand
So do you supose that there could be an algorithm, a method, that gives us truth in any given case?
— Banno
That's an interesting question. — Benj96
See the thread on Rings and Books for more on this.“commits us to a particular way of looking at the matter” which leads us to where Descartes ends up, — Antony Nickles
Excellent answer....we want to avoid our disappointment and surprise — Antony Nickles
Well, I was taken. by this line:Is this the kind of married life Mary advocated and you imagine marks an important distinction between philosophers? — Fooloso4
A curiously accurate characterisation of marriage. It acknowledges the difference between a flatmate and a partner. There is a very different commitment, the willingness to work together while accepting those aspects of one's partner that are not within in one's control. More than a recognition of the other, marriage seeks the likes of Joy in the presence of the other....most people recoil towards experience, and attempt to bring their strengthened self to terms with the rich confusion from which it fled. Marriage, which is a willing acceptance of the genuinely and lastingly strange, is typical of this revulsion. — Rings and Books
To her credit. That line I quoted earlier so succinctly shows the flaw in his approach.She certainly succeeded in annoying Dawkins. — Ludwig V
I've italicised that last to emphasis it. Seems poignant.Philosophers did not want the human soul to be mixed up in the world of objects, as it must be to make knowledge possible. They were too sensitive about its dignity. — Rings and Books
Mary read Honour Moderations and Literae Humaniore, along with Iris Murdoch, at Somerville. No, she does not disregard the history of philosophy. Indeed, one of the claims of Metaphysical Animals is that the (women) were to a large degree responsible for the rejection of Ayer's positivism and a returned emphasis on the classics. Certainly one would not sensibly claim Anscombe or Foot ignore Aristotle.It was the novelty and promise of 20th century analytic philosophy to which many at Oxford and elsewhere were enamored. A disregard for the history of philosophy at its root. A return to Aristotle was a response to this novelty. — Fooloso4
Interesting - as do I, and more. The triviality that so often infests the open threads pushes many a discussion into the Inbox. The three more interesting discussions in which I am presently involved are found there, not in the forums. It avoids feeding the "trolls".I do occasionally get a PM from someone appreciating something I said. — Fooloso4
I still see something when I dream and hallucinate, — Michael
This again assumes that the only alternative to indirect perception is direct perception. Have you stoped beating your wife yet?You're welcome to redefine "direct perception" if you like, but in doing so you're no longer addressing the indirect realist's claim. Your arguments against indirect realism are against a strawman. — Michael
Yep.Careful, if you think about this too much you might come to understand how words do things. — wonderer1
Again, indirect realism's framing of the discussion is oddly passive, as if all we ever do is look.Reminiscent of Kant's Noumena. The whole denial that I know that the heater grate to my right is what I'm seeing. I know what it's made of. I know where it's located. I know the size and shape. I know it's function. I know some dangers it poses to passersby. I know it's not located in my head/body. I know mental representations are. Thus, the grate I'm looking at is not a mental representation. — creativesoul
I'm not convinced. An hallucinatory cow and a veridical cow are very different things.There is no difference between the constituents of an hallucination and a veridical experience. — Michael
...things...I feel pain and see things when I dream and hallucinate. You're reading something into the sentence "I experience mental representations" that just isn't there. — Michael
Yep, a continuing attack on "direct realism", a position that no one actually holds.There's semantic hijacking going on in here concerning what counts as direct realism/perception. — creativesoul
So we have two scenarios. In both there are things in the world. In both there are representations of those things. But in indirect realism one says that "what I see is the representation". Here the "I" doing the "seeing" is seperate to the representation, and the "I" never sees the thing.
Now this leads to various difficulties. It means, for instance, that when you say that you see the cup has a handle, what you mean is that the representation of the cup has a handle. You are not saying anything about the cup. It leads to a whole network of philosophical garden paths in which, absurdly, the self is forever "cut off" from the world in which it lives.
In the other account, one says something like that "I see things by representing them". Here, the "I" doing the seeing is doing the representing. When you say that the cup has a handle, you are saying that it is the cup that has the handle, not the representation.
The physics and physiology is the same in both cases. The wording in the first account cuts one off from the world. The wording in the second account embeds one in the world. The framing, the grammar one chooses, has consequences well beyond mere perception. — Banno
Attempting to use purportedly reliable scientific knowledge to support a claim that we have no reliable knowledge of distal objects is a performative contradiction. — Janus
Balls. If that were so there would not be a philosophical issue. There is no difference in the physics or physiology between direct and indirect descriptions. The difference is that the direct realist sees a cow, the indirect realist sees... something mental. You keep setting out a scientific account as if it settles the issue, but there is no disagreement here.. The philosophical dispute between direct (naive) and indirect (non-naive) realists concerns the physics and physiology of perception. Indirect realists are right and direct realists are wrong. — Michael
:rofl: I think it is exactly the problem. We do not disagree on anything to do with the physiology or physics hereabouts. Where we disagree is as to the language of perception.That issue of language has nothing to do with the epistemological problem of perception. — Michael
Something like that. This is where @Isaac would chime in. :worry:"The model emerges in the process of you interacting with the room. — wonderer1
Well, yes; if by "colour: you mean only mental phenomena, then colours are only mental phenomena, and you have thereby invented your own little language game that you can go play in the corner by yourself.When I say "I see colours and colours are mental phenomena" I am referring to the mental phenomena, not whatever else the term "colour" might be used to refer to. — Michael
This is equivocation. There is "colour" as an object's surface disposition to reflect a certain wavelength of light and there is "colour" as the mental phenomenon that differs between those with 3 channel colour vision and those with 12 channel colour vision (and that occurs when we dream and hallucinate). — Michael
If colours are no more than mental phenomena, how is it that we agree that clear skys are blue? How is it that we agree that an ache is not a sting?Colours and pain are mental phenomena. — Michael
Cool. So this is something you learned to do? You learned not to see the cow, but to see the colour, shade, shape and so on?I've been a visual artist for a long time. I can put aside mental shorthand and tune into my visual field. I see color, light, dark, and lines. I can do that so thoroughly that I forget what it is my looking at, but this is something new artists struggle with. The mind strongly insists it knows what things look like and it will override attempts to draw what's actually in the visual field. I've known about this since childhood, so it's obvious to me that a person can voluntarily shift focus depending on what their concerns are. If it's an incoming car, I probably won't dwell long on how the car is foreshortened in space as it approaches me. — frank
Sure. But not so different that we always say we are seeing different cows... At least some times we are incline to say we see the same cow...Our experiences are different though. — frank
Does that make sense to you? You experience the cow by your neural nets building some sort of model or image or representation of the cow. Add to that the smell, the feel of the hide, and so on....constructing the "image" is your experiencing the cow. — Banno
Not sure that's a good plan. I don't see that self will be any simpler than sight - that seems very unlikely.I would propose that instead of trying to explain sight, let's first do a quick analysis of what we do with the concept of self: — frank
Well, no, it doesn't. It is in a state of flux.The self stays the same... — frank
That's not right. Rather, constructing the "image" is your experiencing the cow.I would say you experience the image. — frank
It makes sense to say that you interact with the room by way of a complex of representations, but how is the model equal to you interacting with the room? — frank