You need to read more Wittgenstein. Your "translations" and similar assessments are ridiculously uncharitable. No one here should take them seriously.

You might be internally consistent, but that's all your position has going for it. — S

Thanks. The credibility of all proper logic and all physical theory is required to be at least internally consistent, so looks like I’m ok. If that’s all I’ve got it’s only because I haven’t taken either the logic or the theory any further.

Thanks. The credibility of all proper logic and all physical theory is required to be at least internally consistent, so looks like I’m ok. If that’s all I’ve got it’s only because I haven’t taken either the logic or the theory any further. — Mww

Internal consistency is vital, but also a piece of cake. You'd need to take it further to impress me.

Nahhh. Waste of time for both of us. As a practical extreme realist, by your own admission you can’t go where the depths of logic and speculative philosophical theory would lead you, and I’m already there, so.....maybe some other time.

"By your own admission": that part in particular, amongst the other problems with what you just said, stands out as either a lie or an error.

And to suggest that you're superior to me in that regard... Have you been drinking that gin you like?

No, it's not just my personal opinion based on whim and fancy. It has a solid basis, and that's why it is shared by most other people. You're just trying to trivialise this. How very superficial. — S

I am just going to point out how funny it is that you criticise me for being "superficial" while your position is that anything beyond the superficial is nonsense.

It is, given where it leads. The known world started with the Big Bang, not at our birth. And direct idealism is far from agreeable, again, given where it leads.

But I grant that it has some degree of deceptive appeal. — S

Well, it was worth a shot.

It makes sense in proper context with the further explanation I gave. If it still doesn't make sense to you, then do something about it. But if I have to needlessly repeat an explanation I've already given, then you'll face my wrath. — S

And if idealism still doesn't make sense to you, then you do something about that. Wow, winning arguments is so easy!

That's fine. Lawyers aren't philosophy enthusiasts — S

They aren't? How do you know I'm not a lawyer?

What I've explained. The language barrier. — S

So, let me put that into your previous sentence:

Yes, and the philosophy-type can be oblivious to the problems that come with not properly considering and appreciating how the guy on the street talks. They have a tendency to think that it's all simply a matter of sophistication or knowledge, thereby missing the language barrier. — S

Which I think means that if you know something, but don't use the words that S approves of, you don't know something, because you "missed the language barrier". Or something. I am sure this means something, since meaning is objective. I just have to find the atlas of meaning somewhere...

I wouldn't go to an archeologist to find out in detail about the physical properties of an object. — S

You should if you want to know the physical properties of, say, a particular piece of pottery relative to a particular culture. Those are physical properties (as indeed all properties are).

I think that your question in terms of the physical seems inappropriate, because it contains a controversial assumption, and we should examine that controversial assumption, but your constant evasive manoeuvres - for which you've gained notoriety - make that difficult, if not impossible. — S

If you think what's going on ontologically is something nonphysical, or supernatural, or whatever, that's fine. Why can't we just plainly state your view about just what's going on ontologically, just how it works, etc.? It's difficult to address just what you think is going on ontologically, just how you think it works, if you won't tell us.

I am just going to point out how funny it is that you criticise me for being "superficial" while your position is that anything beyond the superficial is nonsense. — Echarmion

How did you reply again? Ah yes, I remember now: "that's entirely your opinion".

And if idealism still doesn't make sense to you, then you do something about that. Wow, winning arguments is so easy! — Echarmion

I have. I explored it further, and the results were as predicted.

They aren't? How do you know I'm not a lawyer? — Echarmion

There's a simple test for that. I could ask, "If you were to give someone an orange, how would you go about it?".

If you were to answer, "Here's an orange", then you're not a lawyer.

If you were to answer, "I'd tell him, 'I hereby give and convey to you all and singular, my estate and interests, rights, claim, title, claim and advantages of and in, said orange, together with all its rind, juice, pulp, and seeds, and all rights and advantages with full power to bite, cut, freeze and otherwise eat, the same, or give the same away with and without the pulp, juice, rind and seeds, anything herein before or hereinafter or in any deed, or deeds, instruments of whatever nature or kind whatsoever to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding...", then you're a lawyer.

That joke is actually very relevant here. If someone were really to answer in that lawyerly way, then we'd rightly judge them to be doing something wrong. It's much better to go with, "Here's an orange".

Which I think means that if you know something, but don't use the words that S approves of, you don't know something, because you "missed the language barrier". Or something. I am sure this means something, since meaning is objective. I just have to find the atlas of meaning somewhere... — Echarmion

The atlas of meaning! That's a funny name for a language rule. Or is that what you're calling a dictionary? I've simply been copy and pasting from an online dictionary for words I've used such as "rock" and "boat". You must already be familiar with the English language. Did you learn it from an atlas of meaning somewhere, or the usual way?

You should if you want to know the physical properties of, say, a particular piece of pottery relative to a particular culture. Those are physical properties (as indeed all properties are). — Terrapin Station

Fine, whatever. What was the point of this digression? Was it really worth it? I don't think that either an archeologist or a physicist would find what you are asking of me. What you're asking of me doesn't even seem to make sense, really. You certainly haven't even lifted a finger to convince me otherwise.

If you think what's going on ontologically is something nonphysical, or supernatural, or whatever, that's fine. Why can't we just plainly state your view about just what's going on ontologically, just how it works, etc.? It's difficult to address just what you think is going on ontologically, just how you think it works, if you won't tell us. — Terrapin Station

Let me simplify for you. We'll do it one thing at a time, which is a method of which you approve. First of all, do you understand what scepticism is?

First of all, do you understand what scepticism is? — S

Sure.

Sure. — Terrapin Station

Good. So hopefully you'll also understand me when I say that I'm a sceptic beyond the kind of answers that I've already given you. And, with that in mind, hopefully you'll restrict yourself to asking me questions of a more sensible nature, given what I've just explained.

Good. So hopefully you'll also understand me when I say that I'm a sceptic beyond the kind of answers that I've already given you. And, with that in mind, hopefully you'll restrict yourself to asking me questions of a more sensible nature, given what I've just explained. — S

So are you a skeptic that there's something going on ontologically? Or do you mean that you think there's something going on ontologically, but you have no idea what, exactly?

So are you a skeptic that there's something going on ontologically? Or do you mean that you think there's something going on ontologically, but you have no idea what, exactly? — Terrapin Station

It depends what exactly you mean. Do you even know yourself? There's physical stuff involved. That's for sure. But I am sceptical that that provides a complete picture. If you think otherwise, you'd have to actually try to convince me - if you cared enough about my thoughts on the matter, that is.

The idea that there will be rocks in the future (barring some universal catastrophe) is no different than the idea that there were rocks prior to the advent of humans, so I'm still not getting the sense of your caveats.

Of course, unsurprisingly, no attempt was made by @Mww to address or redress the logical error there!

You have nothing to apologise for. If it weren't for the involvement of those such as yourself and Janus, I would feel much more like I am in a madhouse! :lol: — S

Likewise! It'd be tragic if it wasn't so funny. :rofl:

Of course, unsurprisingly, no attempt was made by Mww to address or redress the logical error there! — Janus

Yes, but one of your remarks sounded like something that Rod Serling would say, so that's immaterial.

Likewise! It'd be tragic if it wasn't so funny. :rofl: — Janus

You can't possibly know that it would be tragic. You would have to travel to an alternate reality and directly experience the scenario in order to find out!

You can't possibly know that it would be tragic. You would have to travel to an alternate reality and directly experience the scenario in order to find out! — S

I meant the scenario that has been playing out in this thread. Which scenario are you referring to?

I meant the scenario that has been playing out in this thread. Which scenario are you referring to? — Janus

The scenario here in this thread is one where we've all died... of laughter... at the bad logic on display.

The scenario I was referring to in last my reply to you, which was intended to mock the aforementioned bad logic, was a scenario where it was in fact tragic, instead of the hilarity of this scenario here, which precludes what would otherwise make for a tragedy.

Ah, I see, I'm a bit slow in the mornings! Do you think we should we stop laughing and start caring, just to see what happens?

Ah, I see, I'm a bit slow in the mornings! Do you think we should we stop laughing and start caring, just to see what happens? — Janus

I'm not sure that it's possible for me to stop laughing at this stage. But it might help if they stopped producing hilariously bad logic.

It depends what exactly you mean. Do you even know yourself? There's physical stuff involved. That's for sure. But I am sceptical that that provides a complete picture. If you think otherwise, you'd have to actually try to convince me - if you cared enough about my thoughts on the matter, that is. — S

Basically, the idea, very broadly--I'm not specifying my views, here, is (presumably) that were talking about things that exist or obtain somehow, and things that work via some set of (ontological) relations, perhaps interacting with each other. I was assuming that you would have a view of what's going on in this regard when it comes to meaning. So I was trying to poke/prod that out of you. If it's not something you've thought about much, so you don't really have a view on it, that's fine. It might be something worth thinking about though.

For me, some of the highlights of this discussion have been:

a) Missing the point about missing the point.

b) "You understand the meaning of what I'm saying right now", "No I don't".

c) Rocks don't exist. They never did.

d) How can an hour pass if no one is there to tell if an hour has passed?

But it might help if they stopped producing hilariously bad logic. — S

But then there'd be nothing to care about either...

Basically, the idea, very broadly--I'm not specifying my views, here, is (presumably) that were talking about things that exist or obtain somehow, and things work via some set of (ontological) relations, perhaps interacting with each other. I was assuming that you would have a view of what's going on in this regard when it comes to meaning. So I was trying to poke/prod that out of you. If it's not something you've thought about much, so you don't really have a view on it, that's fine. It might be something worth thinking about though. — Terrapin Station

I might be able to go into some more detail in some respects, although that might require some prodding from you, but you threw me off by seemingly confining things to the physical, and then you went to the other extreme and brought up the supernatural.

I've said before that I'm not much of a fan of this category game. It's not always the most helpful approach. But, like I've said, I don't doubt that some of the stuff involved is physical. And there's also a relation to stuff that's mental. And then there's the abstract, whatever that is, but that seems like a bit of a mystery. I'm not sure exactly what's what, ontologically, and I don't have a complete account in that regard, and I'm not sure how the whole thing neatly ties together, or of finer details like interaction.

But that almost seems like a different topic, or a different angle on the topic. I still know what I know about meaning and language and suchlike, and I standby what I've said.

Okay thanks for the answer.

Re the physical stuff, I'm a physicalist, obviously, so I think that everything is physical, including mental phenomena, including abstractions, etc. I have beliefs about what's going on with things like meaning in ontological terms (which is then a physicalist account for me). When I encounter a different, "competing" view, I'm curious what the details are, so that's why I push for that.

Okay thanks for the answer.

Re the physical stuff, I'm a physicalist, obviously, so I think that everything is physical, including mental phenomena, including abstractions, etc. I have beliefs about what's going on with things like meaning in ontological terms (which is then a physicalist account for me). When I encounter a different, "competing" view, I'm curious what the details are, so that's why I push for that. — Terrapin Station

That's fair and makes sense. The most suitable -ism for me in terms of the ontology would be scepticism. I reckon I could probably agree with a physicalist about a lot of things, but I don't go as far as they do, because of my scepticism. I'm obviously not an idealist, but I haven't concluded physicalism or dualism either.

What is your position regarding Part 1?
(13 votes)

Realist
46% (6 votes)
Idealist
46% (6 votes)
Other
8% (1 vote)

What is your position regarding Part 2?
(13 votes)

Realist
31% (4 votes)
Idealist
46% (6 votes)
Other
23% (3 votes)

Really? :brow:

Anyway, it would be good if the poll showed who voted for what. That's a shame. And it doesn't break down the number of votes, which I had to do myself. It only shows the percentage.

Banno has posted survey results of professional philosophers before where a large majority agreed with realism. However, I don't know if that was primarily analytic philosophers, or which group was surveyed.

Interesting. I doubt any professionals disagree with realism, but I certainly hope they don’t agree with realism exclusively. Depends on the choice of concepts attributed to the discipline, I suppose.

Interesting. I doubt any professionals disagree with realism, but I certainly hope they don’t agree with realism exclusively. — Mww

I'm sure it's a range, as with all things in philosophy where opinions differ. Personally, I don't think subjective idealism is very tenable. It's hard to think there isn't something real responsible for our experiences, since we experience having bodies that need nutrition, air, water and were born. Also, the whole evolution of life, stars, etc. before us.