Its only proven as long as "There are some lemons that are not yellow" is not introduced. — Philosophim

What do you mean "introduced"?

Are you saying there is a second round of axiomatic systems where we introduce more axioms?

The very strong impression I get is that you have an intuition about what is true and you are trying to fit that intuition into systems without understanding the intuition yourself let alone communicating it to others.

I can't see the argument you are making. What I see is:

"Yes, Yes, but when we introduce stuff then something."

Since I've seen you understand and use effective arguments, this non-statement tells me that your prejudices have come up against a set of facts that don't fit. In a panic, you are re-iterating your prejudices rather than forming an argument which would require examining those prejudices against the new evidence; a process that you can already see will be deeply uncomfortable for your prejudices.

I'm not accusing you of anything nefarious. This is a natural (and usually unconscious) mechanism.

As a rule, people will try every possible alternative before examining and changing their prejudices. If there is a chance that shouting loudly "OVER THERE!" will work then you (or your subconscious) will give it the good old college try before taking the risk of learning and developing.

Learning is painful enough without some dick saying "Look! Over here! This person is learning!"

I could, of course, be reading too much into a post that forgot to bring the argument.

Segue...

Learning and argument in the absence of Logic

Since Axiomatic Mathematics has been hoisted by its own petard in the form of The Principle of Explosion; and informal logic bears only a passing resemblance to the now defunct formal logic; how can we best understand the processes of learning and argument?

A story of survival

The trick to surviving is being good at survival.

The newly born mammal that instinctively seeks its mother's milk has a better chance of passing on its genes than one that doesn't.

The foal that can stand and run within hours of birth has a greater chance of evading predators than one that takes months to stand up.

Having a genetic instinct can be a great aid to survival, but developing such an instinct takes many, many generations.

Mimicry

The parents of a baby have survived long enough to have a baby. If the baby mimics the behaviour of the parents it is taking on behaviours which have already been shown to be successful.

When you started to learn your native language you started by mimicking the sounds and shapes.

As the process continues the depth increases. Each mimicked behaviour is associated with events. We only do the "poo poo" mimic when we have a particular feeling.

When you first started learning to multiply and divide you didn't have an innate understanding of the Set Theoretic derivation of natural numbers. You just followed a particular pattern of behaviours that everyone agreed was the right pattern in that circumstance.

Calculus is just a matter of learning and following a particular set of steps in a particular set of situations.

Consequences of Mimicry, learning

Learning through mimicry is fast. One of the great strengths of humans is their ability to absorb a large number of different behaviours in a short time and, as a rule, present those behaviours at the right time.

It isn't practical for everyone to analyse each new piece of information, weigh all the competing theories and come to an objective conclusion based on the evidence. If you had to build everything from first principles working from Plato through to Russell before you could accept what the math teacher is telling you we'd still be flinging excreta at each other.

Just learn the behaviour, learn the rules for when to apply it. Done. Maybe later we'll refine the behaviour and the rules but all you have to do in this moment is memorise and apply.

A downside of mimicry is that conformity is king. Accurate and appropriate application of mimicked behaviours is (or was) a matter of life or death. The wrong ritual meant the hunt failed, or the crops failed, or the bed was within reach of the bear.

Complex Mimicry

A set of behaviours and the rules about when to apply them can be arbitrarily complex. Circumstances can overlap such that multiple behaviours are applicable with sophisticated rules about which take precedence or how to combine behaviours.

Nor is mimicry static. We refine and improve based on our experiences.

Knowledge

This story about mimicry has one particular feature I'd like to underline: Logic isn't necessary.

The initial justification for mimicked behaviours was that the person being copied had lived long enough for you to come along and copy them.

Survival of the fittest applied to behaviours. (quick shoutout to Richard Dawkins' 'Memes').

A cat learns what behaviours result in food, or scritches, or being left the hell alone.

Animals are able to learn and adapt to situations without the use of formal logic.

Humans can, arguably, learn more behaviours with a greater depth of complexity for when and where to apply them but that is a difference of degree, not of kind.

The tale of the Pacific Cargo Cults

Some Pacific Islanders would make hats and gesticulate at the sky in the hope of bounty from the heavens.

During World War II, American supply bases were setup on remote Pacific islands. Planes would be guided in using radio headsets and semaphore. The planes often carried food and other luxuries.

When the American's departed the islanders tried to call down fresh bounty by mimicking the ground crew. They didn't know that essential parts of the ritual included very specific hats and membership of the United States of America Armed Forces.

Phones

The majority of people happily use a mobile phone to call up that funny video without knowing how one works.

Physicists can plug values into formulas, perform the appropriate rituals and extract useful results. But any physicist who claims to fully understand General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics is stretching the truth.

If you've ever met an accountant, or worse, an economist you will know that they confidently perform the prescribed tasks with little comprehension of the tools and processes.

Recent research has found that Depression is not due to serotonin or dopamine deficiencies. No one knows why anti-depressants work.

The whole history of medicine is rituals that at least a few people survived so they kept doing them to the next victim.

The mechanism of Axiomatic Mathematics is a ritual: Follow these deterministic steps. (Did you know, computer programs are axiomatic systems. They start with an initial condition and then iterate those conditions using a set of rules. (This isn't me being quirky about where I apply definitions - Computational axiomatic mathematics is an entire thing)).

Thoughts

My thoughts consist of networks of relationships. These networks have shapes

I compare shapes in my mind. Some shapes mesh together well. These seem true, valid, justified to me.

Some shapes are discordant. Their existence distorts and corrupts other shapes until it is barely possible to recognise what those shapes signify. These indicate a faulty relationship. One or more of my internal relationships is incorrect.

Fixing the networks when a fault has been identified can be laborious. It largely comes down to a matter of trial and error of changing relationships until they once more form a harmonious result.

Discordant

An axiomatic system is in error if it produces contradictions. Networks of relationships are in error if they are discordant.

I think these two descriptions share a common observation.

We have a case of "I know it when I see it" that is really hard to pin down without running into trouble. In the case of axiomatic mathematics, as soon as you define what a contradiction is, you have proven everything to be inconsistent.

Now, imagine a network of relationships. Imagine every possible network of relationships. Can you see them?

Notice how one network does not preclude another?

In principle, you can have every possible network of relationships in your mind at the same time (I'm sure you have a large mind).

Networks of relationships do not contradict each other simply through the nature of their shape.

If we find some concepts to be discordant with each other it is not due simply to their physical form.

We could beat around the bushes, but the significant determinant is you.

Without you

Without you there is no meaning, no significance, no discord.

A tiger crouching in the bushes is just a shape in the universe; no more, or less, significant than any other shape... until you give that shape significance. You walking past that bush gives the shape significance. You determine how you respond to the networks of relationships that you perceive around you (and within you).

If you abstract away your existence there is nothing left.

You need to exist to perceive. You need to exist to think. You need to exist to argue.

Your existence is the foundation of your perceptual universe.

Trying to make statements as if you don't exist is futile. If you don't exist you can't make statements. If you don't exist you can't decide what is meaningful.

Summary

Everything is relationships.

Among these relationships is the relationship between your existence and everything you do and experience.

If you try to sever this relationship, you cease to exist.

Its only proven as long as "There are some lemons that are not yellow" is not introduced.
— Philosophim

What do you mean "introduced"?

Are you saying there is a second round of axiomatic systems where we introduce more axioms? — Treatid

In an axiomatic system, premises are generally introduced one at a time. So if in the system you had, "All lemons are yellow," there is no contradiction until you put in, "Some lemons aren't yellow." Think of the following.

1. All lemons are yellow.
2. All limes are green.
3. A blue lemon was found today.

At this point the Axiomatic system might have been complete yesterday, but is not incomplete today. If you want to call these two different systems, that's also fine. In either way we label it, a separate system, or a system in which a new property is introduced, the end system ends in a contradiction. This does not contradict the rules of Axiomatic systems, it just shows this particular system ended in a contradiction.

Since I've seen you understand and use effective arguments, this non-statement tells me that your prejudices have come up against a set of facts that don't fit. In a panic, you are re-iterating your prejudices rather than forming an argument which would require examining those prejudices against the new evidence; a process that you can already see will be deeply uncomfortable for your prejudices. — Treatid

Sure, that definitely happens over the internet. I can tell you that in this case its most likely a misunderstanding between us. I'm genuinely engaging you, and if I'm wrong, I don't mind saying so. Keep pointing out if you think I'm mislabeling, misusing, or misunderstanding the points. I can only ask at this point to give me the benefit of the doubt, and I will do the same to you.

Since Axiomatic Mathematics has been hoisted by its own petard in the form of The Principle of Explosion; — Treatid

I have still not seen you prove this point.

This story about mimicry has one particular feature I'd like to underline: Logic isn't necessary. — Treatid

No, its not necessary for survival. Several creatures have no system of logic. But, logic still applies in terms of survival. If a creature behaves illogically, or contrary to a logical outcome of reality, it many times may not survive. Logic is incredibly useful to assess a situation accurately as intelligent develops. Air conditioning was not built by mimicry or instinct. The internet we now use to communicate with each other was built on logic, not intuition.

Without logic, you have brute force evolution. Throw 1000 random creature behaviors at a situation, and what lives will continue to reproduce. Logic is a tool that increases the survival rate of whatever animal uses it. Logic is simply the understanding that step A necessarily leads to step B, and that two things cannot co-exist at once. Though it is simple, like the concept of the number 1, it can be built into something monumental.

If you've ever met an accountant, or worse, an economist you will know that they confidently perform the prescribed tasks with little comprehension of the tools and processes. — Treatid

Logic does not require a full understanding of the underlying process. Assume A. If A is true... is all you need. We're not asking where A came from. The structure of A, its history, etc. We're assuming A exists. In this instance, "A program called Excel exists with these functions. If I use function B, I get output C." While one could operate Excel at an extremely basic level by someone giving them formulas and telling them to just plug the same numbers in again and again, logically they know using a different formula will lead to an unknown result. Our use of logic does not need to build Mt Olympus, sometimes its used to build a card board box house.

Networks of relationships do not contradict each other simply through the nature of their shape. — Treatid

But they can.

A. All of my networked people are friends to me.
B. All friends are good people.
C. Today one of my networked people stole money from my bank account.

As you can see, like the lemon example I gave earlier, we run into a contradiction. Does that destroy the idea of a network as a system, or just destroy my past outlook of this current network? Again to my point that I'm not seeing Axiomatic Logic being invalidated at this time.

If you abstract away your existence there is nothing left. — Treatid

Of course there are things left. The world will go on. My friends and family will still be alive. The birds that chirp in the morning will still be. In fighting over politics will continue. Taxes will still be paid. :D

Among these relationships is the relationship between your existence and everything you do and experience.

If you try to sever this relationship, you cease to exist. — Treatid

Sure, no argument there. I'm just not seeing how relationships is an invalidation of proofs. It seems rather easy to prove the importance of relationships doesn't it? Its just not the foundation as I mentioned earlier. To even think of a relationship, you must think discretely as in "This" vs "That". I haven't seen you attempt to counter that at this point, and it may be because its unimportant to your point, I'm not sure. Let me know what you think.

Logic does not require a full understanding of the underlying process. Assume A. If A is true... is all you need. We're not asking where A came from. The structure of A, its history, etc. We're assuming A exists. In this instance, "A program called Excel exists with these functions. If I use function B, I get output C." While one could operate Excel at an extremely basic level by someone giving them formulas and telling them to just plug the same numbers in again and again, logically they know using a different formula will lead to an unknown result. Our use of logic does not need to build Mt Olympus, sometimes its used to build a card board box house. — Philosophim

The problem with formal logic, or I should say its limitation, is that it ignores changes in contextual sense. A word concept in logic is defined in opposition to everything else in the world indiscriminately, but concepts as we understand them are contrasted in a context and person-dependent way with what they are not. The contrast pole
for a word meaning may be different for you than for me. The more important limitation is that, while we build our computers to calculate by logical symbol manipulation, this doesn’t mean that this is the fundamental or most useful way that we think. Formal logic is a peculiar invention that has its uses, but falls short in addressing how we form and use meanings in everyday situations , and what causes breakdowns in interpersonal understanding.

The problem with formal logic, or I should say its limitation, is that it ignores changes in contextual sense. — Joshs

No, that's just a poor use of logic. A good use of logic would be to include all the variables involved, and that includes the particular context. As a very basic example, we can say the context of whether its raining or not today. If its raining, C follows. If its not, D follows. Take that to any situation. If you introduce a new variable stating, "What about X context?" then you introduce that context as a particular variable within logical thought.

The more important limitation is that, while we build our computers to calculate by logical symbol manipulation, this doesn’t mean that this is the fundamental or most useful way that we think. — Joshs

Logic is a tool, and a usually inefficient one. Logic is a careful examination with a solid and certain process. Its usually very slow, requires sometimes intense thought, and therefore terrible for situations that need snap judgements. As such, we tend to generalize logic, like create principles that don't consider context. Very useful to do so, but takes short cuts for efficiency and loses accuracy in application when context changes.

No, that's just a poor use of logic. A good use of logic would be to include all the variables involved, and that includes the particular context. As a very basic example, we can say the context of whether its raining or not today — Philosophim

When I talk about change in context, I dont mean going from ‘its raining’ to ‘its not raining’, but the subtle qualitative changes in sense of meaning of ‘it’s raining’ that take place over time while remaining within the logical category of ‘its raining’. In going from subject to predicate and back to subject again in a propositional statement, the variables that are collected together to form a propositional chain dont retain a fixed meaning as we move back and forth between them to build up a logical statement. A living sense-making system isnt just designed to adapt to a changing world, its own functioning modifies the meaning of the world it finds itself engaged with, even if that world consists simply of letter symbols connected by logical operators.

Searle is arguing that two indistinguishable perceptions are distinct becuase... he says so?} — Treatid

No, when you see a tree or hallucinate a tree, some of the same brain processes are employed. Hence their possible indistinguishability as perceptions. You can, however, analyse the conditions under which they occur, which are different. Hence their possible distinguishability by analysis.

When I talk about change in context, I dont mean going from ‘its raining’ to ‘its not raining’, I mean going from subject to predicate and back to subject again. in a logical
proposition. — Joshs

Again, there is nothing in logic that does not let you do this. Logic is a tool. You can be meticulous with it, or generic. Noting that people are not very meticulous in their logic does not mean the tool can't be meticulous. I understand your point, because many people do not use logic in such a way. But it doesn't mean it can't.

Again, there is nothing in logic that does not let you do this. Logic is a tool. You can be meticulous with it, or generic. Noting that people are not very meticulous in their logic does not mean the tool can't be meticulous. I understand your point, because many people do not use logic in such a way. But it doesn't mean it can't. — Philosophim

There are many different varieties of logic. For instance, Husserl distinguishes between formal and transcendental
logic. Transcendental logic burrows beneath the presuppositions of formal logic to reveal its genesis and fundamental meaning. Propositional logic can’t reveal its own basis because it begins too late. Treatid says the fundamental basis of meaning is not the object as self-identical substance with attributes and properties , but relations. I would say that the fundamental basis of experience is not simply relations but change in relations, a new constituting or constructing of sense. Formal logic requires stasis and identity as its ground, and attempts to build relationality on top of this.

As Heidegger states:

“In philosophy propositions never get firmed up into a proof. This is the case, not only because there are no top propositions from which others could be deduced, but because here what is "true" is not a "proposition" at all and also not simply that about which a proposition makes a statement. All "proof" presupposes that the one who understands-as he comes, via representation, before the content of a proposition remains unchanged as he enacts the interconnection of representations for the sake of proof. And only the "result" of the deduced proof can demand a changed way of representing or rather a representing of what was unnoticed up until now. By contrast, in philosophical knowing a transformation of the man who understands takes place with the very first step.

“In philosophy propositions never get firmed up into a proof. This is the case, not only because there are no top propositions from which others could be deduced, but because here what is "true" is not a "proposition" at all and also not simply that about which a proposition makes a statement.

Of course. This is the only efficient way to function. Assume I have a car. If I have a car I can drive to the store. Now have I proven how its a car? No, its assumed that its a car. Why? Because I don't need to prove its specifically car and not a truck without a bed before I drive to the store.

Currently the smallest know piece of matter is a quark. Does that mean it actually is? No. And it doesn't matter for the purposes of the rest of our logic.

Logics assumptions start at a point of mutual agreement to consider a specific segment of logic out of the potentially infinite logic behind that assumption. As long as that assumption is not invalidated, it serves as a base for the rest. This is the only way we can think and process the potential infinite.

logic. — Philosophim

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

First Order Logic is not the same thing as you are talking about.

It is clear you have some sense of what Logic implies to you - but you aren't communicating that understanding.

One of the features of informal languages is that they do not have strict definitions. Informal Logic is pretty much whatever you want it to be.

In contrast, First Order Logic and Axiomatic Mathematics are strictly falsifiable. I don't pick on Axiomatic Mathematics just because I like bullying mathematicians. Axiomatic Mathematics provides a (relatively) known, fixed target.

I've presented arguments relating specifically to the mathematical specification of Logic. Your counter has been to make statements regarding something that has nothing to do with First Order Logic.

It isn't that what you are saying is necessarily wrong. It is that it doesn't apply to the specific mathematical artefact that is Formal Logic.

Edit: From what I can see, your idea of Logic is Empirical. Observation is the determinant of truth. This is a reasonable foundation. However, First Order Logic has nothing to do with empirical observations. It is specifically designed to be independent of any particular universe.

You can, however, analyse the conditions under which they occur, which are different. Hence their possible distinguishability by analysis. — jkop

The premise doesn't appear demonstrated to me.

You assert that there exists some difference between hallucination and reality that can be analysed to show the difference between the two.

I don't see why this difference must exist. I can see that it might exist. But as an a priori for a philosophical position I am deeply sceptical.

Copied and edited from another thread

These can be boiled down to stillness and motion. The stillness of objects is sustained against the motion of relationships. Motion is as ubiquitous as the stillness it moves against and neither objects nor stillness nor relationships nor motion is first, or last, or the essence, or the true being. Because they are all at once in the paradox, which is the being, the substance, the related ones. — Fire Ologist

Beautiful. I would be interested in an expansion of your concept of 'paradox'. Context makes it appear relevant and I can see several ways in which our understanding of our own existence and communication could evoke chicken and egg notions of precedence.

Otherwise, you point is well made and taken.

Course correction

• My argument between objects and relations is mis-focused. You are right that it doesn't matter whether a given perception is illusion.
• I'm actually arguing against impossible assumptions. My perception is that there is one large multifaceted assumption that is impossible.
• Description has a mechanism. Some things can be described. Some things cannot be described.

Mistaken assumption

It is widely assumed that it is possible to describe an object.

This is wrong. It is a futile effort.

The Integer 1

The integer 1 has a set of relationships with the integer 2. Likewise for 3, 4, one million, -69, an apple,...

All these relationships form a pattern. This pattern is our conception of what the integer 1 is.

With many interconnected relationships we have a compelling sense of what something is.

If we were to remove each relationship to get to the essence of 1... we would eventually find we are left with nothing.

The integer 1 is the set of relationships it has with everything else. The integer 1 outside our universe with no relationships to anything is indistinguishable from nothingness.

Descriptions

A description is a network of relationships.

The mechanism of language is to build a network of relationships.

Essence

The typical process for finding the essence of meaning, significance, etc; is to strip away all the miscellaneous chaff until we are left with the essential core of the thing we are examining.

This is why this mistaken assumption is so devastating to the pursuit of knowledge.

Every philosophical, mathematical and physical discussion that tries to get to the core of a matter by stripping away all the extraneous concepts, assumptions and frippery is dooming itself to futility.

This is my argument

The assumption that meaning, significance or what have you, is an essential quality of a thing is the single greatest mistake of modern thought.

The significance of a thing is the sum total of its relationships with everything else. Remove the relationships and you have nothing.

This illusion is only here in distinction from some other that (which other can be an illusion as well, or anything, as in comparison to “this” particular illusion, the other need only be a “that”.) — Fire Ologist

I would hate to put words in your mouth - but your post screams to me that you already see this. You already know that every "this" needs all those "thats" in order to have significance.

Is it true?

Is language the process of creating relationships? Yes.

Read a dictionary. Examine those definitions. A simple empirical verification.

For a really fun time, consider the equations of Quantum Mechanics. An equation is a network of relationships.

Every mathematical equation is a little (or large) network of relationships.

It doesn't matter what the essence of the integer 1 is. It was never relevant. What we manipulate and use is the network of relationships.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

First Order Logic is not the same thing as you are talking about. — Treatid

Your Princess Bride reference may be correct. My familiarity with first order logic is limited. However, I'm not seeing any specification addressed to counter my point. To your point of Axiomatic mathematics, I've gone over the differences between complete, incomplete, and contradictory systems. Where am I wrong?

I've presented arguments relating specifically to the mathematical specification of Logic. Your counter has been to make statements regarding something that has nothing to do with First Order Logic. — Treatid

This is a fine general statement, but I'm not seeing specifically where my points have not addressed yours.

It isn't that what you are saying is necessarily wrong. It is that it doesn't apply to the specific mathematical artefact that is Formal Logic. — Treatid

You may very well be correct. It would be helpful if you could take a more specific example and really break it down. I get that your approach has been more of a general sense, but I'm not seeing the details specifics that back up your claims. Again, I may be wrong, I'm just not seeing it.

You assert that there exists some difference between hallucination and reality that can be analysed to show the difference between the two.

I don't see why this difference must exist. I can see that it might exist. But as an a priori for a philosophical position I am deeply sceptical. — Treatid

Well, the most important difference is that the hallucinatory experience is not caused by the things that you experience (e.g. snakes). Instead, the experience is caused by malfunctioning brain processes (possibly evoking memories or imagined snakes) under the influence of drugs or disease or other extraordinary conditions.

The veridical experience, however, is caused by the presence of actual objects and states of affairs (e.g. real snakes). For example, they reflect light into your eyes' photoreceptor cells, which under ordinary conditions causes your brain to produce the visual experience (of the snakes).

Unlike the hallucination, the veridical experience has a continuous and non-detachable interplay with the object that you experience (the real snakes). So when you're looking closer at them, they appear closer in your experience. When you want to look closer at hallucinated snakes, you are not looking closer at anything, and the experience might suddenly disappear as in dreams.

I can see your argument - but it doesn't land because I think you are pre-supposing a distinction between hallucination and reality that I don't think is a given.

You assume that hallucinations and reality are distinct. Using this assumption of distinction you then demonstrate a distinction.

You and Searle are pre-supposing that reality is provably not an hallucination and then reaching conclusions based on that unjustified assumption.

So, Searle's argument depends upon a fallacy in which the conclusion is implicit in his assumptions. He isn't demonstrating anything. He is simply making statements about what his prejudices are.

You might agree with his prejudices - but there is no argument. There is no persuasion.

This kind of fallacy is hard (possibly impossible) to avoid (given this structure of argument). Any conclusion you draw from a set of premises must have been implicit in the premises to begin with - otherwise it wouldn't be a conclusion from those premises.

Which brings us back to the initial proposition: whatever is happening when we discuss/argue it has nothing to do with the explicitly stated mechanisms of Logic - they simply don't form a coherent whole.

A therefore B

If B is is already baked into the assumption A then we haven't demonstrated anything. At best we have made an implicit assumption explicit.

This, of course, applies to all logical statements. Logical deduction can only reveal what already existed within the premises. It cannot create something out of nothing.

Revealing hidden assumptions can be useful in its own right - but Searle is trying to present a bias free argument. This is an impossible task.



That is fine. No problem.

It would be a waste of time to learn First Order Logic and Axiomatic Mathematics just so you could understand an argument that disproves them.

My fight with you regarding logic has been entirely based around demolition of a specific mechanism that you don't even subscribe to.

Your empirical (observation) based sense of logic is far more rational than formal logic. It correlates well with the principles of science (excluding mathematics).

Reductive vs expansive knowledge

My principle aim is to spotlight the inconsistency of reductive knowledge in the face of context dependent meaning.

Axiomatic Mathematics was only ever useful as an example of the failures of reductive knowledge and I feel it was a mistake to introduce that proxy war in the first place.

In light of that...

A statement of context with respect to knowledge

If I understand what you're saying, I agree. I once sat down and asked myself, "If this is correct, what would knowing the truth be?" I realized the only way to know truth, which is what is real, would be to have observed and experienced something from all possible perspectives and viewpoints, and an understanding of all conclusions which did not contradict themselves (as well possibly the ones that do!). — Philosophim

Reductive approach to knowledge

In light of the above, it should be clear that reducing or removing context is a movement away from knowledge.

Which is to say, the reductive approach to knowledge is counter productive.

Context matters

The context of a statement matters when interpreting the meaning.

This is an observation.

A statement with no context has no inherent meaning.

The better the context is defined, the better the meaning is defined.

The better any given context is defined, the better every other context is defined.

Virtuous Circle

The better we understand a given concept, the better we understand every other concept.

The better we understand a given concept, the better we understand every other concept. — Treatid

Are you familiar with Saussurian linguistics? It’s the same idea, drawing from a movement within philosophy and the social sciences called structuralism. Gestalt psychology is another example ( the whole precede the parts). With the later Wittgenstein and the structuralists, however, the focus is shifted to the way the use of a word concept changes the nature of the whole chain of meanings.

My fight with you regarding logic has been entirely based around demolition of a specific mechanism that you don't even subscribe to.

Your empirical (observation) based sense of logic is far more rational than formal logic. It correlates well with the principles of science (excluding mathematics). — Treatid

Then I bow out. Great conversation.

A statement with no context has no inherent meaning.

The better the context is defined, the better the meaning is defined.

The better any given context is defined, the better every other context is defined.

Virtuous Circle

The better we understand a given concept, the better we understand every other concept. — Treatid

Well said! I couldn't agree more.

I wasn't familiar with Saussurean linguistics. Thank you for the references - much appreciated.

Precedence

I think a great deal of what I'm talking about has already been widely talked about inside and outside of philosophy.

What exercises me is that the entire philosophical community stops short of following through.

Solipsism is usually dismissed as being little better than nihilism - but nobody has (successfully) crafted an argument against it. It turns out that taking solipsism seriously and following it to its ultimate conclusion is productive.

"Context Matters" is a simple observation that everyone is capable of making - yet throughout philosophy and mathematics we find argument after argument bending over backwards to ignore this simple observation.

Godel's incompleteness theorems go to some trouble to explicate the nature of being inside a closed system - yet no-one appears to make the connection with our own existence within a closed universe.

General Relativity is a direct repudiation of Newtonian Mechanics and the objectivist point of view. Yet objectivist assumptions remain the de facto foundation of mathematics and (Quantum Mechanics) physics.

It is not that we lack evidence, nor awareness of the evidence.

As such, I'm not trying to demonstrate anything wholly novel. Rather I am attempting to communicate that solipsism, context and the universe being a singular indivisible whole are foundational truths.

We cannot hope to understand the universe if we continue to ignore and deny the fundamental nature of the universe.

Not Theory

Philosophy has fallen into such a state of disrepair that every person has their own opinion and every opinion is worthless.

Where is metaphysics when the choice between Kant and Hume is just that: a choice? Metaphysics struggles to make definitive statements to the point that many assume this is the natural state of philosophy.

The universe isn't a pick your own adventure. You existence isn't a structureless void where each choice is equivalent to every other.

The universe is a specific thing. "Context Matters" is an observation of the universe. This isn't just another nice idea that you can choose to believe because the weather is nice.

Context mattering has consequences. All by itself, this one observation defines the nature of knowledge.

My contention is that we already have the evidence. What we need to do is take that evidence seriously.