People unnecessarily make trouble for themselves. — Michael Ossipoff

Right, but they experience that making of unnecessary trouble as necessary at the time.

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. — Posty McPostface

Is that so? So what lights up in your mind when I just offer the word 'justice' out of context?

My point is that words function together. Meanings do not snap together like legos. Of course there is something 'like' atomic meaning. A word has a kind of 'zone' of meaning even out of context. But this is the word in its weakest form. So I'd say we build a bad foundation when we take words at their weakest and vaguest and least alive and try to build from them (the bottom up approach.)

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

In the same sense that you have a non-want need to drink water, you have a non-want need to not drink water. Do you agree with that? If not, why do you disagree?

In the same sense that you have a non-want need to drink water, you have a non-want need to not drink water. Do you agree with that? If not, why do you disagree? — Terrapin Station

Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding you here. It seems like words are failing us here.

Is that so? So what lights up in your mind when I just offer the word 'justice' out of context? — macrosoft

Yes, "justice" is an abstraction. What more can I say?

Right, but they experience that making of unnecessary trouble as necessary at the time. — macrosoft

Yes.

Michael Ossipoff

People unnecessarily make trouble for themselves. — Michael Ossipoff

What do you mean by that Michael?

Yes, "justice" is an abstraction. What more can I say? — Posty McPostface

Well, you said the atomic meaning was apparent, and I was just trying to get you to introspect and see that words out of context don't have much force. Meaning is distributed. As you read this, your mind flows along the sentence and through time putting the words together in a mysterious complex thought. While the words have spaces between them and something vaguely like atomic meaning, they do not snap together that legos. The spatial metaphor is misleading.

Time is essential to meaning and therefore to being. Being is 'in' time, we might say.

Well, you said the atomic meaning was apparent, and I was just trying to get you to introspect and see that words out of context don't have much force. Meaning is distributed. As you read this, your mind flows along the sentence and through time putting the words together in a mysterious complex thought. — macrosoft

Does that make you a subjectivist too? Or contextualism reigns supreme?

In other words, instead of talking about needs/wants in the conventional sense, you've switched to talking about this:

"In order for effect x to obtain, y must occur as (at least) one cause."

In order for the effect of you staying alive to obtain, drinking water must occur as at least one cause.

Well, in order for the effect of you dying of thirst/dehydration to obtain, NOT drinking water must occur as at least one cause, right?

And similar things are the case for every single possibility that we can imagine:

In order for you to have your arm severed, we must cut or pull on it (etc.) sufficiently to detach it from your body.

And so on. There would be countless things we could say in that vein.

So are all of those things equally needs in the needs/wants sense?

So are all of those things equally needs in the needs/wants sense? — Terrapin Station

I need water is distinct from "I want water".

I suppose we can live in a fantasy world where wants and needs are equated with one another; but, that's fallacious.

Does that make you a subjectivist too? — Posty McPostface

But what is a subjectivist out of context? See all of these little positions, these 'mini-identities,' are just like atomic words. I am suspicious about all the tidy categories. The big context is the entire personality, which I can only reveal through conversation (such as in this response.)

But what is a subjectivist out of context? See all of these little positions, these 'mini-identities,' are just like atomic words. The big context is the entire personality, which I can only reveal through conversation (such as in this response.) — macrosoft

Understood. So, how does this relate to attitudes?

I need water is distinct from "I want water". — Posty McPostface

And indeed I never said otherwise. I didn't say that they're not distinct. I said that all needs HINGE on wants. In other words, there is no need to (do) x if one does not want/desire y, for which x is necessary.

Our basic sense of who we are has a top-down effect on the details, the 'trees.' If my hero is the scientist who gazes at the cold hard truth without bias, then I will reach for methods that make that possible. My whole grasp of what philosophy is will be in terms of gazing at cold hard truth heroically, while all the sissies gaze at their navels.

Or if I am fundamentally a believer in some God, then everything will be framed in those terms.

Or if I am fundamentally an irritable contrarian, then I will always look for a way to break out of dichotomies and be alone on some mountain above the battlefield, transcendent.

In other words, there is no need to (do) x if one does not want/desire y, for which x is necessary. — Terrapin Station

Oh, indeed. One can always suppress needs over wants. That's true. But, I don't see how this contributes to the discussion in any manner or form.

Our basic sense of who we are has a top-down effect on the details, the 'trees.' If my hero is the scientist who gazes at the cold hard truth without bias, then I will reach for methods that make that possible. My whole grasp of what philosophy is will be in terms of gazing at cold hard truth heroically, while all the sissies gaze at their navels. — macrosoft

Haha, I understand. So, the point of your posts is to highlight that we can't have an attitude independent of meaning obtained in an abstract sense? Which comes first, though? Meaning or attitudes?

Haha, I understand. So, the point of your posts is to highlight that we can't have an attitude independent of meaning obtained in an abstract sense? — Posty McPostface

That sounds kinda-like what I mean. I am saying that attitude is entangled with method. And I am saying that the functioning ground is global and largely automatic or unconscious.

Oh, indeed. One can always suppress needs over wants. That's true. But, I don't see how this contributes to the discussion in any manner or form. — Posty McPostface

The contribution is that most folks don't realize that needs necessarily hinge on wants. The topic is usually treated/understood as if they're two very different things, rather than needs being solely a result of wants. (And usually the cleavage is employed to dismiss wants that another party doesn't value as much.)

That sounds kinda-like what I mean. I am saying that attitude is entangled with method. And I am saying that the functioning ground is global and largely automatic or unconscious. — macrosoft

But, that doesn't mean that method's fail us every time. Sure, methods are prone to fallibilism. But, then we pull ourselves by our bootstraps and are able to share meaning. A private language in principle could not exist.

The topic is usually treated/understood as if they're two very different things, rather than needs being solely a result of wants. — Terrapin Station

But, the topic here is that needs and wants are distinct. That one can hinge on another could be an important insight; but, so what?

"so what" doesn't seem to gel well with "important insight" haha

"That's a very important insight............but so what?" :grin:

"so what" doesn't seem to gel well with "important insight" haha

"That's a very important insight............but so what?" :grin: — Terrapin Station

Heh, I just fail to see the implications of describing needs as hinging on wants. Care to expand?

But, that doesn't mean that method's fail us every time. — Posty McPostface

But I never said that they did. That obscure ground works for us almost every time. It only breaks down all the time in philosophy, where we are constantly pushing against it.

A private language in principle could not exist. — Posty McPostface

Not only do I agree, that actually illuminates the position I'm trying to communicate. We live in language which is social and 'enworlded.'

Not only do I agree, that actually illuminates the position I'm trying to communicate. We live in language which is social and 'enworlded.' — macrosoft

Cool. I thought so myself. I just have a gripe with our lack of agreement on what abstract concepts such as "justice", is.

Cool. I thought so myself. I just have a gripe with our lack of agreement on what abstract concepts such as "justice", is. — Posty McPostface

I don't deny that there is a little drop of something like atomic meaning associated with words. For instance, 'apple' will likely activate an image of an apple in our minds. My point is that this kind of atomic meaning is faint and not worth much. Words get their force as they work together, and you can't interpret a sentence by looking at the words individually but only by taking them as a whole. We do this all the time, and I don't think we can make explicit exactly what is going on --what it is to understand a sentence.

What's funny is that we 'live' what I call 'meaning holism' even as we debate it. And arguing against its existence requires its living application. We tend to stare at an object language and take the metalanguage that makes that staring possible for granted. The eye is not in its own field of vision. But there are mirrors.

It's an elementary feature of most ethical theories to delineate wants from needs. That we can't satisfy some or others is the cause of our disenfranchisement with the world. Hence, we must begin with ourselves to reach a feeling of stability and purpose in life.

Here's one implication for you. You said:

The Schopenhauer in me says that we never really get what we want. It's a constant illusory goal. To want something is to place it in the highest priority of our motivations. Is there any use in chasing after happiness or ecstasy? I don't think so. — Posty McPostface

So understanding that needs always hinge on wants, you'd have to conclude that you can never get what you need, because fulfilling a need necessarily fulfills a want.

Since presumably you've been able to fulfill some needs (otherwise you wouldn't still be alive to type here), you actually HAVE really gotten plenty of stuff you want. Thus, (the) Schopenhauer (in you) is wrong.

What's funny is that we 'live' what I call 'meaning holism' even as we debate it. And arguing against its existence requires its living application. We tend to stare at an object language and take the metalanguage that makes that staring possible for granted. The eye is not in its own field of vision. But there are mirrors. — macrosoft

Cool. I agree for the most part. But, I suppose there are hinge propositions or a priori truth that we must deal with first, and guarantee the intersubjectivity of meaning. If we wanted to communicate with other people, then it is through such a priori truth, such a mathematics, and such.

So understanding that needs always hinge on wants, you'd have to conclude that you can never get what you need, because fulfilling a need necessarily fulfills a want.

Since presumably you've been able to fulfill some needs (otherwise you woudln't still be alive to type here), you actually HAVE really gotten plenty of stuff you want. Thus, (the) Schopenhauer (in you) is wrong. — Terrapin Station

It is wrong and right at the same time. I have wants that haven't been actualized, and I have needs that most are taken care of. Most of my wants are independent of what my needs are. That's just how the cookie crumbles.