When you and I look tot he Newton's Cradle before us, do we see a type or a token? Is your claim that I see my token, you see yours, and together we make a type? — Banno
If the word 'fallible' introduces confusion, the same idea can be stated without it: the value of intersubjectivity has a lot to do with the assumption that each individual observer may report incorrect observations, or be biased in a way that other observers may not be. In such an epistemology, having one's observations checked by others brings value, especially if the different observers are independent from one another and hence can be assumed to have different biases. — Olivier5
So....you’re correct, in that language is not as tidy as we might like it to be, but I would add it is our own fault that it isn’t, and for that, I would say it is our aesthetic response alone, that is sufficient causality. And that, for the simple reason that aesthetic response, in its common and ordinary iteration, is not predicated solely on logic, as are, theoretically, the remaining cognitive components. — Mww
Well, no. It's the fact that we can all talk about the same thing. It's the fact that we all share a public world which is the basis of commonality. — Banno
A glimpse is rich enough; and may be rich indeed. What can be determinably shared is the prosaic; and that is what diminishes art, and subjective experience. — Janus
Nice.
Now, what about
But let's go back to the topic of this thread. Suppose I allow that there are things that cannot be said, that are properly he domain of a subjective world.
Then how could that stuff become inter-subjective? By definition, it cannot move between subjects. Only the public, non-subjecitve stuff can do that.
So if we allow for a private subjective world, the notion of inter-subjective becomes a nonsense. — Banno
It's the fact that we all have our private worlds which is the basis of commonality. — Janus
Well, no. It's the fact that we can all talk about the same thing. It's the fact that we all share a public world which is the basis of commonality. — Banno
animals probably have no idea about, much less what, their fellows or themselves are feeling. — Janus
It seems you do not have a pet. — Banno
Think of social animals: they can participate in communal life by responding to body language; the incarnate language of pleasure and pain, of friendliness and anger. But none of this that is shared among them is determinable; animals probably have no idea about, much less what, their fellows or themselves are feeling. We can do that by reflexive self-awareness and linguistically mediated memory. — Janus
The scenario in question is one where they have failed to do so, and we're looking for a way to move forward despite that impasse. Saying that what we're usually inclined to do is all we possibly can do is just to deny that any resolution to such an impasse is impossible, which is just to not try to resolve it. — Pfhorrest
Did you mean this the other way around? — Pfhorrest
None of those things are arguments. Those are other kinds of responses I would find positive; and also things I would like to help other people do too. But none of them seem to be anything like you do around here. If you're aiming to do any of those things, it's coming off all wrong. — Pfhorrest
...using someone as a lab rat without their consent, are both trollish things to do — Pfhorrest
So you think progress beyond the impasses we've been stuck at is impossible, then? — Pfhorrest
Imagine if that view had prevailed during the transition from the Dark Ages to the dawn of the scientific revolution."There's nothing to be done about disagreements on what is real, as taught by the infallible church, other than try to kill the people who disagree."? That's pretty much the state of moral discourse still, except with the state in place of the church, in places where those aren't still the same thing. — Pfhorrest
Not in the sense of "you are correct! what a brilliant genius!" that you seem to impute. But also not "let's see how I can interpret you in a way that you're clearly wrong" either. Just "oh hmm curious" is the most I really hope for. — Pfhorrest
We actually figured out the source of the misunderstanding in that thread: there are (at least) two different things meant by "confirmationism", one of them that I was arguing against, and another championed by someone (Hempel) who also argued against what I was arguing against. Janus et al thought I was arguing against Hempel's view, when I was actually arguing against the same view Hempel argued against. That explains why everyone kept saying things I already agreed with as though they were refutations of my position. — Pfhorrest
I don't have to assume I'm flawless to see that you clearly think I mean something other than I do. — Pfhorrest
I'm having to figure out what weird assumptions you're making about me, rather than you showing me what weird assumptions I'm actually making. — Pfhorrest
If you did actually understand what I was saying, and pointed out things that must be true in order for the things I think to be true, that would actually be helpful and welcome. But that's not what's happening. I'm just spending all my time clearing up your misunderstandings about what I think in the first place. — Pfhorrest
What resources do you expect to tap into other than those of our mental processes? ... If a whole load of intuitions, gut feelings and empathetic emotional states, all processed by various rational algorithms didn't solve the problem — Isaac
I don't see taking an academic interest in people's posts as an unethical thing. — Isaac
So you think progress beyond the impasses we've been stuck at is impossible, then? — Pfhorrest
Yes. — Isaac
It seems very odd to expect charity from others, but when those others misinterpret or misunderstand you, your default explanation is that they're doing so deliberately out of malice. — Isaac
You're not teaching me, you know that, right? — Isaac
I'm not in the least bit interested in what your philosophy actually is. [...] So please don't put yourself under any obligation to ensure that I've understood you properly unless you want to. — Isaac
You sound to be suggesting that it's only the intuitions, gut feelings, etc, that we have to rely on, and if those aren't doing the trick, tough, there's nothing more to be done. I'm suggesting that we can invent new things to try doing, besides just whatever comes naturally. — Pfhorrest
Just being curious what it is that people think would not be unethical. I would gladly explain in as much detail as you like what my views actually are — Pfhorrest
Then your position is exactly the "just giving up" that I say all of the philosophical positions I'm against imply. Thanks for proving my point. — Pfhorrest
It's a suspicion I begin to have after going around and around in circles for a long time, running into increasingly implausible interpretations of what I'm trying to convey. — Pfhorrest
I'm not being shown some unseen assumptions I have, because you don't even accurately understand what my views are — Pfhorrest
The only outcome I hoped to get out of that latest one was to reach some point or another where I don't have to worry that every time I say anything here you're going to jump in and the whole thread will just become the same argument with you over again. — Pfhorrest
I was claiming that the materialist position can only hypothesize the existence of objectively correct perception, not inanimate ontology.
— simeonz
The view that there is only perception, with nothing behind it, is one of the strange garden paths that Kant found. It's a misreading, from what I understand, but Mww would be able to tell us more. — Banno
All language is ever meant to do is translate subjective activity into exchangeable representations.
— Mww
A neat statement of the myth. Translation occurs between languages, so if translation is the correct model, then there must be a subjective language to be translated into English. — Banno
we do things with word as we use them — Banno
the meaning is not private, but constructed and shared in that very use — Banno
Thanks for starting a thread with I question that I had asked. — TheMadFool
As per scientific objectivity the convergence of observations by which I mean observations that have been made by many people is like a certificate of objectivity conferred on whatever the observation is - that it's not just a private, subjective affair.
Compare the above scientific principle if you will with what intersubjectivity is. Like scientific reproducibility, intersubjectivity too is about a convergence, a convergence of ideas, and yet the claim is that intersubjectivity and (scientific) objectivity are two different things. — TheMadFool
perception is nothing but the passive receptivity from which physical sensations arise; they are necessary for, but never enter into, this particular speculative epistemology. Perception tells us an object is present to sensibility, but not what the object is. — Mww
If you’re interested enough, I’ll lay it out. — Mww
...subjectively inventing words... — Mww
the meaning is not private, but constructed and shared in that very use
— Banno
This suggests we always understand each other. — Mww
Universals - they are medieval — Banno
Nor need they be vague: "seven" is not vague, nor is "odd number". — Banno
So what? Pass me that yellow cup, would you? Are you wanting to say that the cup is no more than a perception? Out with it! — Banno
I think we agree that we have no truth-apt ontological statements to make about either cups or numbers. — frank
As for sharing ideas amongst ourselves, we have to assume that we do to even start the discussion about it. We agree on that as well, right? — frank
Psychologist and their fellow travellers have pretty much dismissed the notion fo passive receptivity — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.