I would add that environment-organism isn't a master-slave relationship. Living things have been altering their environments since life started. A successful biosphere bends its surroundings to its needs. What humans have done to the land surface of the planet is a drastic case of something that's pretty typical for living things.

Yes, that's a good point. This is why dispensing with final causality in biology is so difficult. But final causality also goes off the rails when we decide that what constitutes "a being" is arbitrary. Then we end up with attempts to explain the telos of rocks, which have no organic unity and are more bundles of external causes (obviously, they do act in the way all mobile being acts, but not in the way animals do).

I think some of the more successful attempts to explain culture have followed on the doctrine of signs/semiotics, and the distinction between the umwelt and the human species-specific lebenswelt.

Yes, that's a good point. This is why dispensing with final causality in biology is so difficult. But final causality also goes off the rails when we decide that what constitutes "a being" is arbitrary. Then we end up with attempts to explain the telos of rocks, which have no organic unity and are more bundles of external causes (obviously, they do act in the way all mobile being acts, but not in the way animals do). — Count Timothy von Icarus

True. Final cause is built into the meaning of life. I think people who want to look at the whole scene more holistically are experimenting philosophically. As you say, at the borders it starts to become confusing.

I think some of the more successful attempts to explain culture have followed on the doctrine of signs/semiotics, and the distinction between the umwelt and the human species-specific lebenswelt. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Culture is fascinating to me. I came across a book by a structuralist once (can't remember the name now). But he was talking about German religion specialists who discovered that Native Americans have symbolism that echoes what we call gnosticism. So they concluded that the origin of these images must be back more than 10,000 years. The structuralist point was that if you're going to push it that far back, just admit that you don't know where it's coming from, and that it could be arising independently due to structure.

To Josh's point, the eye has evolved independently around 50 times. Maybe a thing that life keeps doing in response to light is somehow structural? By the way, are you German?

My interpretation of Wittgenstein and hinge propositions is that hinges are neither true nor false, i.e., hinges have a role similar to the rules of a game. — Sam26

Within the game, according to the rules, it is true that some things are allowed and others not.

One can use “true,” but note it’s not an epistemic use of the concept as justified true belief. — Sam26

It is justified within the system.

To Josh's point, the eye has evolved independently around 50 times

How is this to the point re the environment or the physics of subatomic particles as culture or normativity?

How is this to the point re the environment or the physics of subatomic particles as culture or normativity? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, it doesn't help with that point. :grin:

Ah, ok. I thought the entirety of your post had gone over my head. Not German by the way lol. Seems like something like convergent evolution, or even just "chance" would explain similar symbols being used in disparate parts of the world, but speculating about antediluvian, continent-spanning gnostic societies does seem like more fun. Lumeria and Atlantis are probably the common denominator.

Lumeria and Atlantis are probably the common denominator. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No doubt. :cool:

It is justified within the system. — Fooloso4

To say that hinges are justified in any epistemic sense is to miss the main thrust of OC. It would be to "...grant you [Moore] all the rest (OC 1)." Hinge propositions are not subject to verification or falsification (the doubt) within the system, they allow all our talk of epistemic justification and doubting to take root. In other words, they are the ungrounded linguistic framework that allows the door to swing (the door of epistemology). This is why justification ends with basic beliefs, and why it solves the infinite regress problem. They form the bedrock of how epistemic language gets off the ground in the first place.

They form the bedrock of how epistemic language gets off the ground in the first place. — Sam26

And maybe life itself leaps forward with unreasonable confidence.

And maybe life itself leaps forward with unreasonable confidence. — frank

It's not reasonable or unreasonable it just is the framework we have to work with.

It's not reasonable or unreasonable it just is the framework we have to work with. — Sam26

I think it's more like a leap in the dark.

It's not at all a leap in the dark, no more than accepting the Earth is more than 100 years old is a leap in the dark, or that I have hands is a leap in the dark.

To say that hinges are justified in any epistemic sense is to miss the main thrust of OC. It would be to "...grant you [Moore] all the rest (OC 1)." — Sam26

There is not a single agreed upon sense or meaning or assumptions that define the term 'epistemic', but I do not think we can deny that epistemology deals with the problem of knowledge. Clearly from beginning to end Wittgenstein was concerned with the problem of knowledge. It is one thing to claim that his epistemology in OC differs from more traditional views, but quite another to deny that it is epistemology. Annalisa Coliva and Danièle Moyal-Sharrock have edited a book titled "Hinge Epistemology"

Hinge propositions are not subject to verification or falsification (the doubt) within the system — Sam26

In OC Wittgenstein identifies one hinge proposition: 12x12=144. This propositions is true. 12x12 = any other number is false. If one doubts it, it can quickly and easily be demonstrated. If this cannot be proven then there can be no mathematical proofs.

Clearly, you haven't understood a thing I've said. I question your ability to interpret not only what I've communicated over and over again, but your ability to interpret OC. I find it a waste of my time trying to explain myself to you. You either don't take the time to read or you have a bottle of vodka next to you, maybe it's the latter. I don't know which.

In OC Wittgenstein identifies one hinge proposition: 12x12=144. This propositions is true. 12x12 = any other number is false. If one doubts it, it can quickly and easily be demonstrated. If this cannot be proven then there can be no mathematical proofs. — Fooloso4

To say that 12x12 =144 is a hinge proposition is to think of it as a rule for arriving at the product 144. The result of a calculation can be true or false but the rule for arriving at the result is neither true nor false. The rule merely stipulates the criterion for determining what would constitute the correct or incorrect answer.

Or, perhaps you are wrong!

Deleted. I decided that there is no benefit in responding to your churlishness.

To say that 12x12 =144 is a hinge proposition is to think of it as a rule for arriving at the product 144. — Joshs

Wittgenstein calls it a proposition not a rule. We follow rules. We do not follow propositions. Propositions are either true or false. Calling it a hinge does not change that.

That is to say, the questions that we raise and our doubts depend on the fact that some
propositions are exempt from doubt, are as it were like hinges on which those turn.

(OC 341)

That is to say, it belongs to the logic of our scientific investigations that certain things are in
deed not doubted.

(OC 342)

If I want the door to turn, the hinges must stay put.

(OC 343).

It is not, as some would have it, that a hinge is neither true nor false, it is that its truth is not doubted.

The result of a calculation can be true or false but the rule for arriving at the result is neither true nor false. The rule merely stipulates the criterion for determining what would constitute the correct or incorrect answer. — Joshs

What is the rule for arriving at the answer? When we calculate correctly we arrive at the correct answer. Are there infinite rules for the infinite amount of numbers that can be multiplied? Does anyone know or follow these rules or do they calculate?