Two big revolutions for me were (1) self-consciousness with respect to the 'pose' and (2) meaning holism. And of course they are related. Meaning holism is opened up more and more as one lets go of the idea that philosophy is word-math because one starts to see that the word-mathematician is not the best role or pose available. — macrosoft

What is "meaning holism"?

As

What do you mean by that? — Posty McPostface

Let's say you try to live as an X. You do your best to live up to the pose, but you find that it just doesn't work in practice. And even logically there are rough spots. So you make adjustments here and there. Or sometimes you experience a revolution and abandon the pose completely.

What is "meaning holism"? — Posty McPostface

I've written about it in lots of post, and the name 'macrosoft' even hints at it. Basically the idea is that the tree gets its meaning from the forest. We have people interpreting people on the global level. To zoom in on the individual words and wring our hands over individual meanings is the first wrong step. The whole enterprise of interpretation is hobbled by staring at a particular tree, and thinking that the truth is the sum of the truths about particular trees.

Needs always hinge on wants.

"I need food."

"Why do you need food?"

"Because I'll starve to death otherwise. I want to keep living."

You don't have any need without having an underlying want.

Another approach is to just think about what it means to know English. Now you are not at all aware of every English word just now or every meaningful combination of words. But you have this know-how. The words pour out of you, their supposedly atomic meanings deeply interwoven through time. IMO, there's no way you can ever get behind this massive know-how to justify it or ground it. It is a 'groundless ground.' (Lee Braver's term.)

I've written about it in lots of post, and the name 'macrosoft' even hints at it. Basically the idea is that the tree gets its meaning from the forest. We have people interpreting people on the global level. To zoom in on the individual words and wring our hands over individual meanings is the first wrong step. The whole enterprise of interpretation is hobbled by staring at a particular tree, and thinking that the truth is the sum of the truths about particular trees. — macrosoft

Oy--we're probably complete opposites on that. I'm a subjectivist on meaning. Meaning is something that happens in individual's heads. And each individual will necessarily have non-identical meanings compared to other individuals ("strictly" non-identical, since nominalism is the case; they can be similar, but they won't literally be the same meaning).

Another approach is to just think about what it means to know English. Now you are not at all aware of every English word just now or every meaningful combination of words. But you have this know-how. The words pour out of you, their supposedly atomic meanings deeply interwoven through time. IMO, there's no way you can ever get behind this massive know-how to justify it or ground it. It is a 'groundless ground.' (Lee Braver's term.) — macrosoft

Understood. Yet, those atomic relations stand out from the rest. They are what ground meaning.

Want's can not all be satisfied — Posty McPostface

Wants could better be called "preferences" or "likes". We achieve our likes as well as feasible in a world that isn't custom-made for us. No problem.

Needs? Things that are needed in order for continued pursuit of likes.

Ultimately, what was really needed?

We live with a constant
perceived deficit in life. — Posty McPostface

It isn't possible to achieve all likes. No problem.

But, isn't that pointless? — Posty McPostface

How so? What's wrong with achieving what you like when and to the extent feasible?

How much do we really need?

Merely to do our best, toward our likes, and toward a considerate, harmless, beneficial lifestyle.

Michael Ossipoff

It isn't possible to achieve all likes. No problem. — Michael Ossipoff

Big problem. We live in strife over trivialities in life. How could you neglect to mention this is beyond me.

You don't have any need without having an underlying want. — Terrapin Station

This can't be true. Can it?

Oy--we're probably complete opposites on that. I'm a subjectivist on meaning. Meaning is something that happens in individual's heads. And each individual will necessarily have non-identical meanings compared to other individuals ("strictly" non-identical, since nominalism is the case; they can be similar, but they won't literally be the same meaning). — Terrapin Station

I can somewhat to relate to that, but I wonder if you see where I'm coming from in terms of the interdependence of meanings --that they aren't really atomic.

Seems obvious to me. What would you propose as a counter-example?

Understood. Yet, those atomic relations stand out from the rest. They are what ground meaning. — Posty McPostface

You just described exactly the view that I am 'attacking.'

Seems obvious to me. What would you propose as a counter-example? — Terrapin Station

My need for water to survive is independent of any want.

I'm saying that the ground is not a few ultra-important meanings but the language as a whole.

I can somewhat to relate to that, but I wonder if you see where I'm coming from in terms of the interdependence of meanings --that they aren't really atomic. — macrosoft

Well, I'd say that the meanings you assign are both influenced by the behavior of others, as well as other things in the environment, as well as influencing others, including the meanings they assign.

I'm saying that the ground is not a few ultra-important meanings but the language as a whole. — macrosoft

What is the ground without bedrock beliefs and truths?

What is the ground without bedrock beliefs and truths? — Posty McPostface

My point is that the ground is somewhat obscure. Do you have any real doubt that you live in a world with others?

My point is that the ground is somewhat obscure. Do you have any real doubt that you live in a world with others? — macrosoft

How so? We all stand on the same ground more or less.

Your way of speaking and being manifests these 'truths' constantly. It's only when we reach for little machine like arguments that things get slippery, because then we try to do math with individual essences, ignoring the very framework that supports this attempt.

My need for water to survive is independent of any want. — Posty McPostface

That's shifting the sense of "need" that we're talking about--in other words, it's equivocating two different senses of the term.

In the sense you've shifted to, your need to avoid drinking water to die of thirst/dehydration is independent of any want, right?

So when we talk about needs and wants, would you list a need to avoid drinking water?

How so? We all stand on the same ground more or less. — Posty McPostface

Exactly. We all stand on the same ground more or less, else we would not be able to make sense of one another at all. Now we are getting there. There is a basic intelligibility, a basic know-how, that we don't have to work for.

And this is where we really start, not from nothing. And where we go from here uses this mysterious basic intelligibility.

In the sense you've shifted to, your need to avoid drinking water to die of thirst/dehydration is independent of any want, right?

So when we talk about needs and wants, would you list a need to avoid drinking water? — Terrapin Station

I don't understand this. Please explain.

Exactly. We all stand on the same ground more or less, else we would not be able to make sense of one another at all. Now we are getting there. There is a basic intelligibility, a basic know-how, that we don't have to work for. — macrosoft

So, hence, words have atomic meaning.

So, hence, words have atomic meaning. — Posty McPostface

What is the atomic meaning of 'justice'? Is it crisp in your head? Can you hold the exhaustive concept of justice in a single thought?

I'm surprised that you leap on these atomic meanings, given your love of Wittgenstein. IMO, there's a good reason that his views changed later.

In the same sense that:
(a) to stay alive, you are required to drink water,
(b) to die of thirst/dehydration, you are required to NOT drink water.

So, if that's what we're talking about when we talk about needs/wants, do you list (b) as a need? Do you say, "One of my needs is to not drink water"?

"It isn't possible to achieve all likes. No problem." — Michael Ossipoff
— Posty McPostface

Big problem. We live in strife over trivialities in life.

...self-made strife.

Often we do, but we needn't.

If Schopenhauer said that, he was speaking only for himself (...and admittedly for a lot of other people too)...but his attitude toward life is unnecessary and guarantees artificial self-imposed unhappiness.

People unnecessarily make trouble for themselves.

Michael Ossipoff

What is the atomic meaning of 'justice'? — macrosoft

Not anything we could type. In my view, meanings are different than words, especially different than marks we can make on screens, sounds we can make with our mouths, etc.

What is the atomic meaning of 'justice'? Is it crisp in your head? Can you hold the exhaustive concept of justice in a single thought? — macrosoft

Justice is an abstraction of the mind. Sure, we can disagree about it; but, the atomic meaning is apparent when we want to communicate it to another.

So, if that's what we're talking about when we talk about needs/wants, do you list (b) as a need? Do you say, "One of my needs is to not drink water"? — Terrapin Station

That's a want admittedly, but, I fail to see how it contrasts from the need to drink water.