That’s silly. You can say the same for any number of things. Personal preferences don’t make things completely oblique.

Every snigle word carries a personal weight to it. For example I’ve often used the word “mountain” to explain this to the point where my personal memories that surround that word give the word a unique meaning/sense to me. That doesn’t mean people don’t understand what “mountain” means and my understanding of Posty McPostface is cery likely shared by many others here. So you’re wrong.

Hmm. I think the correspondence theory of truth fails us here. What does Pegasus correspond to? — Posty McPostface

That's a good question. I'd say to a shared image/notion. To me it's cleaner to just grant existence to all of these things(the horse and the horse with wings). They just exist in different ways, with different intensities of publicness, different possibilities in terms of our purposes.

That doesn’t mean people don’t understand what “mountain” means and my understanding of Posty McPostface is cery likely shared by many others here. So you’re wrong. — I like sushi

But we can't talk about concepts in isolation. They exist as mental constructs that are mapped and described by language. Hence, Posty McPostface is just an empty name that you can attach meaning to through interactions with the real person posting under the guise of "Posty McPostface".

That's a good question. — macrosoft

I think the point is that the correspondence theory of truth is bunk when talking about empty names. Therefore, what can we substitute to qualify empty names as meaningful content?

I think the point is that the correspondence theory of truth is bunk when talking about empty names. Therefore, what can we substitute to qualify empty names as meaningful content? — Posty McPostface

Does 'empty name' even make sense? Can there be a name that doesn't point at something? Would we still call it a name?

How is a horse different than a Pegasus for someone who has seen neither but seen pictures of both?

There is a difference, of course. I suspect that we could talk about this difference endlessly.

I'm with you on this one. Otherwise what would we be talking about? Does the name "two" denote anything?

I'm with you on this one. Otherwise what would we be talking about? Does the name "two" denote anything? — Posty McPostface

In certain contexts it's the name of a number.

And what does that number denote?

Now you are feeling my vibe. Look for local meaning. Try to catch it. Fail. Discover that meaning is global or distributed and we can't even say what it is globally either --or we can never quite say it. We can't quite say what makes our doomed attempt to finally say it possible.

Hmm. So, does that imply some form of idealism? Reminds me of the problem of Universal's. But I think I finally get your nick.

Hmm. So, does that imply some form of idealism? — Posty McPostface

'Idealism' is caught up in the storm. 'Idealism' has no more local meaning than 'two.' It's not false to find idealism in it but this 'idealism' would be one more failure to finally say it. It's the explicitness that brings with it fragility. A chandelier. All of our explicit attempts interfere with another. Hegel wrote somewhere that all philosophy was idealism. I think there's some truth in that. But don't nail that down as a kind of math.

What is most worth saying cannot be said clearly and ultimately. Thus spoke macrosoft --and who knows how many others.

Everyone understands “Posty” and I’m pretty sure people understand the comedic value of “Mc” when used in a name. People also understand “face.”

I don’t see your point nor the point of “empty names.” Maybe I’m missing something.

What is most worth saying cannot be said clearly and ultimately. — macrosoft

Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent. My favorite quote by Witty.

What is “familiarly known” is not properly known, just for the reason that it is “familiar”. When engaged in the process of knowing, it is the commonest form of self-deception, and a deception of other people as well, to assume something to be familiar, and give assent to it on that very account. Knowledge of that sort, with all its talk, never gets from the spot, but has no idea that this is the case. Subject and object, and so on, God, nature, understanding, sensibility, etc., are uncritically presupposed as familiar and something valid, and become fixed points from which to start and to which to return. The process of knowing flits between these secure points, and in consequence goes on merely along the surface. — Hegel

This is the attitude I have toward the usual categories. They become bland and lifeless. They keep us on the surface, bickering over nothing really (at worst) and confusion earnest inquiry (at best.)

Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent. My favorite quote by Witty. — Posty McPostface

Yeah, he's on to something. That's what I love about him. He was grossed out by people trying to make a science of the highest things. That approach betrays them. He really wanted these things given some respect with silence. (?) To me the endlessly mechanical approach to life in its fullness is somewhat small and sad. 'I am correct-bot 2040. Please input facts. There are no interpretations, only facts. Thank you. '

It's a utilitarian grasping with no openness. Instead it's obsessed with power, correctness, language policing, etc. It tries to fit the object (God or the transcendent or the unnameable or the mystery or love or beauty) to the method. The method is too small, and the method is maybe even a form of cowardice. We are terrified of being wrong, or being mortal. We want to invent a machine that keeps us safe on the surface. [This is an oversimplification, etc. But everything is....]

I don’t see your point nor the point of “empty names.” Maybe I’m missing something. — I like sushi

Well my entire point is that Posty McPostface is like a fictional character like Homer or Harry Potter. Thus, it's an empty name that denotes me; but, is not really me.

I don't know about that. You can always be wrong about me being a nice Posty McPostface and am evil instead. When is "enough information" accurate in forming a picture about someone? — Posty McPostface

You may never have enough information to form an accurate picture of a person. Luckily, that's not a requirement to connect a person to a name. But if I at least get the name right, I can tell who it is that I have an incomplete or even wrong picture of. Finding the referent of a proper name is a lot easier than making a list of all referents of a less exclusive category. (There are different people with the same name, I know, which can cause confusion.)

Imagine what a fun forum this would be if we were all posting anonymously.

Yeah, the seventh proposition of the Tractatus is intense. Does it lead to philosophical quietism?

Imagine what a fun forum this would be if we were all posting anonymously. — Dawnstorm

Yes, but haven't I already proven that we are posting anonymously with my silly nickname?

Yes, but haven't I already proven that we are posting anonymously with my silly nickname? — Posty McPostface

No, you haven't. Your posting under an alias, which is different.

All post written by the user "Posty McPostface" are attributed to that user. No other user is called "Posty McPostface". If ALL users would change their name to "Posty McPostface", then we'd all be posting practically anonymously (of course, we'd also have to choose the same avatars, or have the board disallow avatars.)

Yeah, the seventh proposition of the Tractatus is intense. Does it lead to philosophical quietism? — Posty McPostface

I see how it could. On the other hand, I find an ecstasy in that which I feel I have come to understand. Not all the time (life has its ups and downs) but again and again. So for me it's a beautiful thing to try to find liberating words, words that open situations instead of closing them, words that point beyond getting trapped in words. IMV this stuff was already in the tradition mixed with other elements. What was Hegel pointing at? Something dynamic and alive. Something that always moved beyond categories toward the whole. Why did Diogenes mock the cobwebs of the dialecticians? Why did Democritus laugh? Who was Pyrroh really? (Behind the goofy myths.) And what were the negative theologians trying to say?

This is one of my favorite 'spiritual' passages of philosophy that connects a certain understanding of language with more than just conveniently avoiding the waste of time.

This faith does not formulate itself—it simply lives, and so guards itself against formulae. To be sure, the accident of environment, of educational background gives prominence to concepts of a certain sort: in primitive Christianity one finds only concepts of a Judaeo-Semitic character (—that of eating and drinking at the last supper belongs to this category—an idea which, like everything else Jewish, has been badly mauled by the church). But let us be careful not to see in all this anything more than symbolical language, semantics[6] an opportunity to speak in parables. It is only on the theory that no word is to be taken literally that this anti-realist is able to speak at all. Set down among Hindus he would have made use of the concepts of Sankhya,[7] and among Chinese he would have employed those of Lao-tse[8]—and in neither case would it have made any difference to him.—With a little freedom in the use of words, one might actually call Jesus a “free spirit”[9]—he cares nothing for what is established: the word killeth,[10] whatever is established killeth. The idea of “life” as an experience, as he alone conceives it, stands opposed to his mind to every sort of word, formula, law, belief and dogma. He speaks only of inner things: “life” or “truth” or “light” is his word for the innermost—in his sight everything else, the whole of reality, all nature, even language, has significance only as sign, as allegory.—Here it is of paramount importance to be led into no error by the temptations lying in Christian, or rather ecclesiastical prejudices: such a symbolism par excellence stands outside all religion, all notions of worship, all history, all natural science, all worldly experience, all knowledge, all politics, all psychology, all books, all art—his “wisdom” is precisely a pure ignorance[11] of all such things. — Nietzsche

So far no one else has ever said to me: Yeah, that speaks to me too! This passage has always just hung there when I posted it. But I feel this music in good moments. And I think Nietzsche's Christ is very close to Nietzsche's own transcendence. Beyond all his penetrating paragraphs there is a thrust into the beyond of all that has become dead and fixed for him. We might say that he reaches for beings in order to never-really-say becoming.

Is this philosophy, mysticism, religion? The words break down. The categories fail, especially if we add to this portrait a familiarity with sophisticated thought that doesn't get trapped in it. This 'ignorance' is an ignorance revealed by striving against ignorance. It is a mystery painfully-at-first revealed to those who would demystify.

But it is not like “Harry Potter” or “Pegasus.” Those names have a meaning shared by many, many people. I might call my chair Alan The Kangaroo, which from now on I think I will (seriously!)

Obivously if I refer to Alan The Kangaroo people will think it is either a Kangaroo, or more likely a friend of mine called Alan who’s either from Australia, able to jump quite high or some othr connection.

The name “Posty McPostface” refers to that part of you presented on this forum. “Harry Potter” refers to some aspect of the authors imagination. It is nothing more than that. The whole business of some philosopher of language coming up with this is nothing more than someone attempting to say something new yet doing no more than expressing something we’re all readily aware of - at least in terms of psychological identity and symbolism.

You may as well say your “real name” is an “empty name.” This is because your real name is an umbrella under which “Posty McPostface” exists - not that we care here which then presents the illusion of some other individual being (it’s just you whoever you are.)

Ok, no disagreements on my end.

Is this philosophy, mysticism, religion? The words break down. The categories fail, especially if we add to this portrait a familiarity with sophisticated thought that doesn't get trapped in it. This 'ignorance' is an ignorance revealed by striving against ignorance. It is a mystery painfully-at-first revealed to those who would demystify. — macrosoft

I would say in the positive that it is mysticism of sorts. Often interpreted as sophistry!

I might call my chair Alan The Kangaroo, which from now on I think I will (seriously!) — I like sushi

:smile:

I would say in the positive that it is mysticism of sorts. Often interpreted as sophistr — Posty McPostface

Yes, and maybe it is both. The words alone can only point. My question for you: do you think philopshy seeks something higher ? Do you feel any sort of religious passion in your thinking? One wants truth not to pay the bills but just because. Something is trying to articulate itself. Life is being lived in a high way in the conceptual realm, unfolding itself, finding words for a vision of the world....of itself as this finding of the world in the world. Whatya think?

To me, "Empty Names" can also mean "A Vocabulary without a definition or target".

Santa Clause, your username, and Harry Potter are not "Empty Names" because is referring to something/Concept.

Now that I think about it, as long as you call it "Empty Names" it's almost impossible to be Empty, because a name is always referring to something/concept.

Somethings that you might call "A Vocabulary without a definition or target" are

1) "awuhawuhuiashduihasuiod"

2) "awkkasjdiasdhashfuiasdhfui"

3) "awkjkajksdasjdoasjdoijasd"

even, "wkwkwkwwkwkwkwkwkwkkw" As WEIRD as it is, does have value... it's how an indonesian people laugh it seems :D

I find philosophy therapeutic to a large degree. I've always been a sort of believer in reason, contrary to Hume I don't think reason is the handmaiden to the passions. There's something divine and mystical about reason and logos, noesis, and such.

The limits of my language are the limits of my world; but, then I learn something new and expand on those limits.

Santa Clause, your username, and Harry Potter are not "Empty Names" because is referring to something/Concept. — diesynyang

What is that something you are referring to? Is it just a mental constructs of sorts?