We need something 'in itself' to represent. — Philosophim

Why?

We need something 'in itself' to represent.
— Philosophim

Why? — Banno

How do you represent something unless that 'something' is there?

How do you represent something unless that 'something' is there? — Philosophim

Sure, we can represent a something. Why would it have to be a "Something in itself", whatever that might be.

Generally, the debate is, "Can we know what a thing in itself is?" Can we know what reality is, apart from our interpretations of that reality? And the answer is "No". — Philosophim

So there's that. We can't know what a "thing in itself" is. But presumably we can know what the thing is. So what purpose is there in this philosophical construct, this phantasm, this thing-in-itself? You can't say anything about it, so the story goes - and yet the pages hereabouts are full of it.

Why not drop the thing-in-itself in favour of the thing? At least then we can say something.

Why not drop the thing-in-itself in favour of the thing? At least then we can say something. — Banno

I agree that is the end take out of all of this. A "thing in itself" is a logical consequence that should not be considered anymore than its base logical necessity. As long as 'the thing in itself' does not contradict our representations (IE, cutting my hand off means it doesn't work anymore, no matter how I try to represent it otherwise) we can hold them.

Trying to figure anything more out about the thing in itself is pointless. You can't, you can only represent it.

Trying to figure anything more out about the thing in itself is pointless. You can't, you can only represent it. — Philosophim

And once you represent it, it is the thing...

I've never been able to see the point. It seems to me to conceal more than reveal.

Nor, while we are at it, is it clear how it applies to gloves. Is the supposition that a glove-in-itself, about which we can say nothing, is neither left nor right handed? But then we have said things about it - that it is a glove, and that it is neither left nor right. Very odd.

And once you represent it, it is the thing...

I've never been able to see the point. It seems to me to conceal more than reveal. — Banno

Its a logical footnote to prevent solipsism is all. There is something underneath our representations which we cannot fully understands that is real and affects us. There's nothing else to really explore with it, so that's really where it lies.

Nor, while we are at it, is it clear how it applies to gloves. Is the supposition that a glove-in-itself, about which we can say nothing, is neither left nor right handed? — Banno

This is old philosophy we're dissecting. From an era before WWI, computers, and Netflix. Its a historical study about a thought experiment that was used as nothing more as a medium to bounce the idea around that there are some things that we can ascribe to reality, and arguably some things we can't. Best not to overanalyze it or elevate it to have any deeper meaning then that.

Its a logical footnote to prevent solipsism is all. — Philosophim

I don't understand how.

Best not to overanalyze it or elevate it to have any deeper meaning then that. — Philosophim

Didn't you want to use it in order to explain something about gloves?

Best not to overanalyze it or elevate it to have any deeper meaning then that.
— Philosophim
Didn't you want to use it in order to explain something about gloves? — Banno

No. The gloves are simply a thought experiment they used to explain the idea. The idea is what is being explained, the gloves are just a starting point to make the idea less abstract.

Its a logical footnote to prevent solipsism is all.
— Philosophim
I don't understand how. — Banno

If everything is constructed by the mind, and there is no 'thing in itself' that we are interpreting, then all of reality would be in our mind. A thing in itself is a logical note that there is a reality that exists even if we aren't around to interpret it.

Witt's thoughts are in TLP 6.3111. — frank

I'm looking at the TLP and don't see that sentence.

6.3 Logical research means the investigation of all regularity. And
outside logic all is accident.
6.31 The so-called law of induction cannot in any case be a logical
law, for it is obviously a signicant proposition.And therefore
it cannot be a law a priori either.
6.32 The law of causality is not a law but the form of a law.*
6.321 Law of Causality is a class name. And as in mechanics there
are, for instance, minimum-laws, such as that of least action, so
in physics there are causal laws, laws of the causality form.
6.3211 Men had indeed an idea that there must be a law of least action, before they knew exactly how it ran. (Here, as always,
the a priori certain proves to be something purely logical.)

I don't think I uniquely endow space with directionality. I think directions come from the fact that each person has a POV from a body that's easily divided into quadrants. — frank

If directions come from the self, or cogito, then I don't think we can rely upon things like "quadrants" -- before Descartes there was no such concept, so the cogito is relevant to note -- mostly these are thoughts that are the result of analysis. Descartes broke the world down into bits to figure out relationships between the bits, and so arrived at I think, therefore I am as the one and only certainty -- from which, to his credit, he built back up to the familiar world from this certainty.

I'd say directions come about because it's useful to be able to know where to go and tell others' the same. "Left" and "right" probably don't even correspond to chirality, exactly, but chirality is the feature of the world that I wanted to point out as both a mathematical and empirical phenomenon which can account for the original question: not that everyone does it this way, but because we can do it this way I gravitate towards it and would prefer the point which seems harder to prove be shown -- the idea that directionality is somehow inhering in us alone, and when we die it all goes away.

Conceptually I think there's something there, but linking the concept to reality is... well, something I think about.

but chirality is the feature of the world that I wanted to point out as both a mathematical and empirical phenomenon which can account for the original question — Moliere

The question was not whether or not there is chirality. It was: how do you tell your left from your right? I don't believe that answer is found in any math, but if you think it is, could you explain how?

If directions come from the self, or cogito — Moliere

I don't think directionality comes from the cogito. I don't think anyone has ever believed that.

I gravitate towards it and would prefer the point which seems harder to prove be shown -- the idea that directionality is somehow inhering in us alone, and when we die it all goes away. — Moliere

You said this earlier, did you change your mind?

"Left" and "Right" seem very obviously conventional, just like "up" and "down" -- anything relative to a speaker. — Moliere

It was: how do you tell your left from your right? I don't believe that answer is found in any math, but if you think it is, could you explain how? — frank

For Kant, at least, that there is a mathematical description -- much like Euclid or Pythagoras -- then you have a priori synthetic knowledge. The form of the intuition is structured by that; chirality gives a straightforward example from math which explains how we're able to differentiate left from right.

This isn't a bodily thing, though the question of how our body is able is interesting; I'm fairly certain that my left and right are habituated for the purpose of communicating. So no I don't think I changed my mind. When I say I gravitate towards "it" I mean this pragmatic theory of directionality, and want more arguments for why it should be thought of disappearing when we all die.

I'm looking at the TLP and don't see that sentence — Moliere

"6.36111 The Kantian problem of the right and left hand which cannot be made to cover one another already exists in the plane, and even in one-dimensional space; where the two congruent figures a and b cannot be made to cover one another without moving them out of this space. The right and left hand are in fact completely congruent. And the fact that they cannot be made to cover one another has nothing to do with it.

"A right-hand glove could be put on a left hand if it could be turned round in four-dimensional space.". TLP

chirality gives a straightforward example from math which explains how we're able to differentiate left from right — Moliere

Could you lay that out in broad strokes? I don't think a description of chirality will distinguish right from left for you. For that, you need a reference. All reference points are chosen by us for our purposes.

I mean this pragmatic theory of directionality, and want more arguments for why it should be thought of disappearing when we all die. — Moliere

I think you'll find that once you explore the math you mentioned a little further.

Could you lay that out in broad strokes? I don't think a description of chirality will distinguish right from left for you. For that, you need a reference. All reference points are chosen by us for our purposes. — frank

I think you'll find that once you explore the math you mentioned a little further. — frank

I don't think you need a reference as much as a habituation -- "reference frame" is easily handled in mathematics through transformations -- that's the basis of Einstein's paper on special relativity.

The points are chosen, yes -- we can describe space with polar or cartesian coordinates -- and they're tooled to our purposes. I agree with all that.

I don't understand how this relates to left/right-handedness. I think it's only habituation, and nothing else -- nothing about space at all.

I don't understand how this relates to left/right-handedness. I think it's only habituation, and nothing else -- nothing about space at all. — Moliere

Ok. Drop the issue of space. I only mentioned Kant and Leibniz because otherwise someone would have moved the thread to the lounge, failing to notice that this is a time honored philosophical question.

How does habituation work if a person doesn't have any innate sense of leftness vs rightness? I'm asking.

How does habituation work if a person doesn't have any innate sense of leftness vs rightness? I'm asking. — frank

It wouldn’t be an innate sense so much as one that arises through coordination among different sense modalities and their relation to our actions with our surrounds. We construct a body image and perceptual map out of schemes of action. Out of these coordinations, a relatively stable marker would have to emerge that would allow us to consistently distinguish left from right. For instance, perhaps that marker is tied to an asymmetry of kinesthetic feedback between one side of the body and the other. Also, most are either exclusively left or right-handed. The memory of which hand one uses to play the guitar or throw a ball can be used to distinguish left from right. I think this issue can be compared with that of the development of perfect pitch and other such accomplishments of coordination of perceptual input. One thing I can say definitely is that it has nothing to do with the Euclidean geometry of space.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230112-why-some-people-cant-tell-left-from-right#

For Leibniz, innateness includes abilities that are only in potential at birth, but developed through engagement with the world. Like birds can't fly at birth, but flight is still innate?

Woe, I just discovered that I can write piñon with the squiggly. Awesome.

How does habituation work if a person doesn't have any innate sense of leftness vs rightness? — frank

Diligent Hokey Pokey practice?

That would work

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230112-why-some-people-cant-tell-left-from-right# — Joshs

Interesting article. I had never really thought much about this. To me it seemed an odd subject to start a thread about, but after reading that article I can see how my strengths in visuo-spatial cognition likely make it easier for me, than it is for others.

"A right-hand glove could be put on a left hand if it could be turned round in four-dimensional space.". — frank

Extra dimensions are not needed. A right-handed glove can be put on a left hand if it is turned inside out.

Which seems to me to show something of the character of this issue. There is a presumption that a glove must be either left handed, or it is right handed. But any glove can be either. There is no absolute answer to "is the glove left-handed or is it right-handed?", only relative answers.

And that relation is just orientation. It is not consciousness.

Extra dimensions are not needed. A right-handed glove can be put on a left hand if it is turned inside out. — Banno

Right. Forget about hands, you can fold a line over on itself and through that journey left has become right.

And that relation is just orientation. It is not consciousness. — Banno

If you prefer. Imagine a stone and a boulder on a far away planet. Is the stone to the left or to the right of the boulder?

Imagine a stone and a boulder on a far away planet. Is the stone to the left or to the right of the boulder? — frank

Well, yes - that answers your OP, doesn't it?

You don't need anything so remote.

You and I sit opposite each other at a table. On my right is a knife, on my left, a fork. The fork is on your right. Does that mean there is no objective truth as to the location of the fork? — Banno

You love that story, huh? Whoever initiated it did you a favor.

Well, it shows the lie of the reduction to relativism and subjectivity – a theme in this thread as well as many others. Folk see space as not absolute, and conclude that therefore it is only subjective...

Well, it shows the lie of the reduction to relativism and subjectivity – a theme in this thread as well as many others. Folk see space as not absolute, and conclude that therefore it is only subjective... — Banno

If you say so.

How does habituation work if a person doesn't have any innate sense of leftness vs rightness? I'm asking. — frank

We have to be careful about what we claim to have an innate sense of, I think.

Scientifically speaking we'd be making a claim about what we bring to the table -- but it's not like we're born with beliefs about left/right. Rather, we are rewarded within a social environment when we complete tasks, such as identifying left/right in accord with the social world, because we're a social species who needs to be able to communicate in order to continue our biological cycle.

But "Habituation" need not be biological; it seems psychological but need not be that either. We are creatures of habit in that we repeat actions and through that repetition we learn more. I'd say that I know my left from my right because once upon a time someone told me which was what -- now I have a name for different sides of my body -- than anything else.

Interesting perspective. :up: