I supported the closure. — jamalrob

Big surprise there.

The philosophical content had shrunk to almost nothing and letting it continue would have resulted in more childish bickering. And as I see it the decision was about quality more than it was about being illiberal and controlling. — jamalrob

So, what now, if I want to continue discussion of the philosophical topic in a way which would meet the approval of the likes of you and Baden? You've closed the discussion I created.

So delete the shit. — unenlightened

I actually agree with this, even including my own shit, and so long as it is not the entire discussion or valuable comments of mine. And if it's just one little comment in an otherwise valuable post, then edit, don't just delete the whole post. And it certainly shouldn't be a task given to Baden. Or jamalrob. Hanover or Michael I would trust.

That would be much better than closure.

Tell you what. Apply those principles of tolerance and less judgementalness to your interlocutors in future and karma may take a liking to you. — Baden

This isn't about my personal character, though. I didn't ask, "Hey guys! What do you think of my personal character?".

This is about abuse of power. I am not a member of the site staff. You are.

Are you suggesting that you'll be less biased against me in future if I cave in to your pressure of getting me to behave how you want me to behave?

What was being abused was your position as discussion creator. And the abuse involved you using the discussion for the most part, but particularly towards the end, primarily as a means to massage your own ego. You have plenty of other discussions in which to do that, and we're not likely to prioritize your attempts at having fun at others expense above forum quality. But go ahead, see if you can talk anyone into believing you were actually doing philosophy when the discussion was closed. — Baden

I never said that it was all philosophy. I'm not denying the off topic comments. Nevertheless, there was an ongoing worthwhile philosophical discussion which you've now closed, when there were a number of better ways of handling the problem, such as editing or deleting comments, or using your words to actually communicate the message, instead of jumping the gun and taking a heavy-handed approach. In my judgement, we were better here when the powers that be were fostering more of a liberal, free thinking, tolerant, less judgemental forum. Now it's more of a controlling, knee-jerk judgement, snappy action, shutting don't discussion, sort of forum. Boo. :down:

It's dangerous to even suggest the deletion tool if the closure tool is being abused. That would just scale up the problem.

Of course, anyone who doesn't see things your way is part of your problem. That's apparent. Anyway, that was the reason. I doubt there'll be many apart from terrapin who on observing the way the conversation was going would see any philosophical value in it. — Baden

I would like to hear from @Janus and @ZhouBoTong on that. They're less likely to be biased against me than others in that discussion. Also, @Marchesk.

Was there any philosophical value in the discussion? Should the discussion have been closed? Closed by Baden, abruptly and without warning.

More specifically, it had degenerated into a series of repetitive entrenchments of positions, insults, and bad jokes. — Baden

Practically all discussions here involve repetitive entrenchments of positions, insulting remarks, and bad jokes. You do this yourself. Especially the bad jokes.

Generally, my impression of the way the staff now operate is that it's more controlling, more biased, more judgemental, than it used to be. This might not be down to all of the staff, it could be down to just a few. The closure of discussions was originally brought in when Feedback discussions used to go on for pages and pages of paranoia, accusations, conspiracies, and mudslinging. With that usage, in that setting, it was okay by me. But now it has become excessive, and a tool which is abused. But of course, you don't see it that way, which is part of the problem.

I suggested and carried out the closure on the basis there was no philosophy left in the discussion. — Baden

You should know as well as I do that that's not the case. At the very least, your comment is a disgraceful exaggeration.

Which begs the question: If a rock is not defined by reference to human observations, then what does the definition reference?
— Echarmion

Rocks. — S

We had a good laugh at this at work today when I relayed the conversation to my colleagues.

No. You’re culpable for accusing me of it without showing how the failure manifests. — Mww

Okay, so you want me to spoonfeed you the answer. You could have just said that.

I did it on purpose to show that I reject his funny way of speaking. Someone who is capable of thinking outside of the box should be capable of figuring out what I was doing, why I was doing it, and what I meant by that, instead of just narrowly seeing it as a tautology.

A rock is just a rock. By which I mean that it is just as it is defined. And the way that it's defined says nothing of how it looks or feels or whatever to an observer. What it says is what it is. What it does is describe it terms of objective properties.

Of course, I could have humoured him by answering the question by adopting his funny way of speaking, but I don't approve of his funny way of speaking, so that would be counterproductive. In case it hasn't become apparent to you by now, I'm a proponent of ordinary language philosophy, not Kantian language philosophy.

Try being strong instead of whiny and weak. — DingoJones

That's a brilliant first line of a first reply. In fact, the rest of your reply is pretty brilliant, too. :lol: :up:

I wish more people here would unabashedly tell it like it is without fear of reprisals.

...and deflection of culpability. — Mww

So I'm culpable for your failure to think outside of the box?

And again. — Mww

No, that wasn't in reply to a question. :lol:

Answering a question with a question.

Wonderful. — Mww

You'd rather I spoonfeed you the answer straightaway than give you an opportunity to reconsider?

Do you understand that saying “rocks are just rocks” is a tautological declaration and not a dialectical contribution? — Mww

Do you understand that missing what I was purposefully doing there only reflects badly on you? Try thinking outside of the box.

And this isn't a popularity contest. If it was, I would lose, because gadflies are unpopular with horses. Sometimes, it's like you're speaking, but all I hear is "Neigh! Neigh!".

What's unreasonable is to even try to have a discussion with you, so goodbye. — Echarmion

Oh noes. Please don't go. You make so much sense. Tell me more about how it is that rocks don't exist, and up is down, and the sea is the sky. I love that special kind of wisdom you get with philosophy-types.

It would amount to acting in disconformity, and it would likely result in miscommunication, and it would have the kind of consequences which you inevitably get when there's a miscommunication, or when you speak in a funny way.

Your response is trivial, because it amounts to: "well, by my rules, that still doesn't count, so it's not a rule". It would be more efficient for you to just copy and paste that each time.

Why not just answer my question? I am serious. If you believe yourself to be intellectually honest, you have to be able to answer. — Echarmion

I refuse to talk in your funny way, with your funny distinction. Rocks are just rocks.

You can start by pointing out any single attribute of a rock that doesn't reference an observation. — Echarmion

That's all of them, so just pick any.

So, metaphysics doesn't exist, or is entirely nonsense? — Echarmion

That doesn't follow from what I said.

Uh huh. Is that supposed to be another argument? — Echarmion

It's on you to demonstrate the supposed logical link. It's unreasonable to expect me to do anything other than point out that, in my assessment, there isn't one. Put together a valid argument and we might just get somewhere.

QED — Mww

"Kwed"?

Rocks as they are in and of themselves? — Echarmion

Just rocks.

Where did I say that rocks magically change? I know rocks are rocks, I never claimed they turn into cats or toasters. — Echarmion

If you weren't suggesting that they magically change, then what was your point? They are what they are. I've told you what they are.

Again "rock" refers to bunch of observations, sensory input. — Echarmion

No it doesn't. It refers to a rock. Are you ever going to realise that what you're saying is just what you're reading into it, or is it futile for me to even try?

As long as we fundamentally disagree about what rocks are, all further discussion is pointless. — Echarmion

Yes, until you learn to let go off your funny way of thinking and speaking, it will continue to pose a problem.

You are going to keep insisting that rocks predate humans, which is of course true if we talk about the physical world. — Echarmion

There's only one world, which is this world, and in this world, it is a well supported fact that rocks preexisted us.

I am going to respond that the physical world is the world of human observation, and as such cannot predate humans. You are talking about temporal relations within observed reality, I am talking about the logical relationship between observation and observer. — Echarmion

I'm talking about reality. You're free to keep rambling about observation, but you shouldn't expect me to care about logical irrelevancies.

You claimed "absurd as a deviation from ordinary language is a valid criterion, so Hitchens razor applies to you just the same. — Echarmion

No, because I provided an argument. You're sending us backwards when we should be going forwards.

So is the argument that scientific evidence, which is gathered by observation, proves what the world is like beyond observation? — Echarmion

How it's gathered is logically irrelevant.

If you're going to insult me, at least put some effort into it.

Since you like to reference fallacies: poisoning the well. — Echarmion

It wasn't intended as an insult, even if you find it insulting. You really would be extraordinary, because ordinary people can and do recognise extraordinary claims as extraordinary claims.

And I did say that I don't believe that you're extraordinary in this way. I believe that you're ordinary in this regard, like me, and like the rest of us.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is one of the colloquial sayings that are really hard to apply consistently. Who defines what an extraordinary claim is, and how? — Echarmion

If you can't recognise an extraordinary claim as an extraordinary claim, then you're extraordinary yourself. I don't believe that you're extraordinary. I'd find it more plausible that you're in denial or pretending.

This is like the photocopier guy from the video. I might call these kind of questions photocopier questions from now on.

Which begs the question: If a rock is not defined by reference to human observations, then what does the definition reference? — Echarmion

Rocks.

That rocks existed for millions of years is a theory based on observations. How does this theory say anything about what rocks are outside of observations? — Echarmion

There isn't any valid logical connection between your first sentence and your question. Your first sentence is logically irrelevant. And you wouldn't need to ask your question if you understand the meaning of what I'm saying. Nothing I'm saying logically implies that rocks would somehow have magically changed. That might be your bizarre view, but it's not mine. Rocks are rocks.

Well no-one, obviously. — Echarmion

But saying that doesn't resolve your problem. Let me explain. If rocks don't exist independently of observation, yet it is true that rocks preexisted all beings capable of observation, which it is, then you must explain how there was observation without any beings capable of observation.

Perhaps I am, but so far I haven't seen a convincing argument to that effect. — Echarmion

I don't need one, because you never gave one for this:

Anyways I don't accept that "absurd as a deviation from ordinary language use" is a relevant criticism. — Echarmion

Hitchen's razor.

The world preexisted us, so it preexisted our minds, so your premise that the world is a picture in our minds is false.
— S

Did it? Are time and space objective parts of reality? How do you know? — Echarmion

You can look up the wealth of scientific evidence supporting the claim that the world preexisted us, and you can try to argue the hugely implausible alternative, namely that the world immediately sprang into existence the very moment that we did. As for the latter, good luck with that. You're going to need it.

You philosophy-TYPES.....haven’t adopted a decent metaphysical theory and haven’t graduated to a decent enlightening beverage. — Mww

I don't know why you're saying it like that and talking as though you're not one yourself. And it's interesting how your drink snobbery matches your philosophical snobbery. Do you listen to Beethoven? Go to the theatre?

But in order to play Chess, you have to follow the rules. Otherwise, you're playing a different game. — Marchesk

Yes. And? You weren't meaning to disagree with me there, were you?

In what sense are there rules of chess, though, if there's no penalty (as I described before) for not following the rules? — Terrapin Station

Wait, you don't seriously deny that there are rules of chess, do you? If the analogy is apt, then there are rules.

The penalties that matter are disqualification from a tournament, etc. — Terrapin Station

There are consequences for not following the rules, whether we're talking about chess or language games. If the consequences in the latter case don't fit your personal criteria for counting, then so be it. Besides, I mentioned disqualification earlier, and you dismissed it, yet now you're using it in your own explanation regarding chess.

If simply being a convention is enough to be a rule, then it's a "rule" that during slow songs at a concert, you engage and hold high your lighter (or now your phone). I just never knew anyone who would call that a rule. — Terrapin Station

It's like an unwritten rule. You hold your lighter up during slow songs at a concert. You either play along or you don't. You don't have to play chess.

Also, a pattern is not equivalent to a rule. — Metaphysician Undercover

Janus is right. Behavioural patterns can be evidence of rule following. His examples are plausible and make sense. The explanation works.

Is your argument in the OP that ontology is confused because we need to be looking at language games instead to see what is going on when we categorize things? — Marchesk

That was a question, not an argument. I wanted to explore that avenue of thought.

If so, my response would that ontology remains relevant because there's lots of evidence in favor of reductive explanations and related patterns among various phenomenon. And that's why physics theorizes that four forces are all that's required for everything in the universe, and that ordinary matter is made up of particles that form atoms and molecules.

So there's good reason to think there is a basic stuff the universe consists of. Maybe it's fields, maybe it's particles and spacetime, maybes it's superstrings. Or maybe it's something we can only approximate. If you go back far enough, everything in the universe was part of tiny volume of space that inflated. It's not like rocks, stars and animals eternally populated the cosmos.

Is physics itself a language game? There is certainly agreed upon jargon. But the experiments themselves aren't linguistic. And those have forced scientists to revise their jargon and even replace it over time.

Atoms weren't a thing and then they were, and then they were composed of subatomic particles and light had particle properties, and all the odd QM and GR results. Also that it's heavily mathematical.

Is math a language game? — Marchesk

I don't doubt much of what you say there. Like I said in my other discussion, I don't doubt the science or the maths. But I do doubt what some philosophy-types draw from all of this.

My concern is over how much or to what extent our disagreement in this area - this area of ontological categories, and perhaps other areas or even generally - is genuine or merely semantic. Are we really disagreeing as much as we think we are, or is it more of an illusion: a bewitchment of language? How much of it, under proper analysis, amounts to game playing? Different games? Different rules? Perhaps the same game, but people play it differently or go by their own rules?

It's trivially true that language originated in humans, but it was not "invented" as if there was some conscious effort at design involved. Language develops organically. The world's most recently developed language, Nicaraguan Sign Language, is a case in point. The route from creole to full language occurred through the children of parents who used the creole and added grammatical complexity spontaneously.

So the process there is something like rudimentary tools of communication being automatically transformed into a language, which allows for more advanced communication and from which rules are retroactively inferred and codification occurs. The communication comes first then becomes more complex. And only at that point can you start to talk about a set of rules which defines how the language functions.

So, the quote

With English, in a nutshell, it seems to me that people invented the language, made up the rules, agreed on them, started speaking it, started using it as a tool for communication
— quoted in the OP, unattributed

is senseless from a linguistic point of view (and really from any point of view to the extent it implies people invented and debated rules with each other before using language as a tool for communication).

It's true we don't know for sure how quickly or gradually language developed (there are competing theories), but there does seem to be an in-built capacity that kicks in with children to the extent that they can unconsciously create complex linguistic form. It's important though to stress the lack of purposeful design / agreement. — Baden

Fine, whatever. I was just trying to set the scene. You seem to be taking it a bit too literally. Maybe it's not perfect. So language evolved or magically sprang out of nowhere...

We don't really need a full blown lecture on the origins and development of language for the purpose of this discussion, do we?

However it got here, there are rules. Rules like what the word "dog" means. That's my take on the basics of how language works. Take it from there if need be.

Oops, fixed that, attributed now. It's from the OP and seems to be laid out there as a kind of foundation for the rest of the discussion.

Edit: Oh, tho I guess the OP itself quoted it, unattributed. So maybe I've incorrectly attributed it. — csalisbury

:grin:

Whoops. It's all me. I'm quoting myself, unattributed. I just liked the formatting. I thought it looked neater like that. Clearer.

The same way apes invented humans, agreed on their traits, and then started being them?


Why does the genesis of english seem this way to you? Most (all?) historical linguists would profoundly disagree (unless you're playing extremely fast and loose with 'invent', 'agree' etc.) Your account sounds a little bit like Rousseau's idea that the original humans must've been running around, on their own, until they got together and decided to have a society.

It seems counterproductive to try to come up with an ontology of meaning beginning with a speculative reconstruction that is disconnected from- and seemingly unconcerned with - research on what actually happened. — csalisbury

Alright, enlighten me then, smarty-pants. Gimmie the lowdown.

A rule can only exist as expressed by language. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is what you have a burden to demonstrate without begging the question (as you are wont to do).

I have some questions for you. What do you think an abstraction is? And do you think that an abstraction is composed of language?

If you think that it is false that a rule can only exist as expressed in language, then the onus is on your to give evidence of this. You said above, that this is an unreasonable request. It is not, an unreasonable request. You are claiming X is false, and the request is for evidence to back up your claim that X is false. If you cannot show me a rule which is not expressed in language, then it is your claim, that X is false, which is unreasonable. — Metaphysician Undercover

Consider that claim retracted, at least temporarily. :roll:

Now, the burden is on you, and only you. And arguments from ignorance don't count. You can't argue that it's not true because I haven't shown that it's false. That would be an invalid argument.

Ok. — Mww

Now fetch me a beer.

And what came after was a paradigm shift, the single greatest such shift in history, with respect to philosophy in general and epistemology in particular. — Mww

If you're thinking of Kant here, then yes, he was great. But he is an obstacle, just like Hume was. Just as Kant saw Hume in this way, I see Kant in this way. And that Kant is an obstacle does not mean that he is an insurmountable obstacle. It seems to me that you're stuck in the past and a hindrance to progress. There have been important contributions to philosophy after Kant, and some of them have influenced my argument here.

There's a way of talking about idealism that most of us on the forums are familiar with. It's a no-nonsense wryness. It's meant as a corrective to out-there thought that's lost its grounding. And that can be a good thing. — csalisbury

At least you understand where I'm coming from, and accept that this can be a good thing.

Here's the problem:

Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and rivers as rivers. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and rivers are not rivers. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and rivers once again as river.
— Qingyuan Weixin

The wryness only really works for the transition from non-mountain back to mountain. It doesn't work if you never understood the 'more intimate knowledge' to begin with, if you've always only seen mountains as mountains. Kurt Vonnegut went to war, Mark Twain was knee-deep in life, before retiring from it to reflect ironically. Their wryness was earned.

What I see in this thread, and many thread like this, is common sense masquerading as a knowing wryness, one it hasn't earned. It's mimicry, a borrowed veneer of knowingness. — csalisbury

That's how you see it. The following is how I see it.

Here's the problem. There's this assumption that because of my similarities with the average guy on the street, the same criticisms that apply to him, also apply to me. It's basically a guilty by association error. And your reply is also basically an ad hominem where you're calling me unthinking and unworthy. How judgemental of you. It's a shame you didn't go about replying in a better way.

Here's the difference. Believe it or not, I have actually thought about this a lot, and I feel like I've reached a point where I've come out the other side, only to find that my initial assumptions were pretty much right all along (albeit perhaps with a few qualifications here and there), kind of like your quote. And I've gained the insight of why it is that others go wrong, and get stuck at an earlier stage. This is basically the triad of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. You perhaps see my position as one of the first two. I see my position as the synthesis. You think that you're right and I'm wrong, and, funnily enough, I think that I'm right and you're wrong.

Surely to say "there is a rock", is far more ordinary (far less extraordinary) than "you know there might not even be such a thing as those entities we erroneously label as rocks". So not evidence, but decent reasoning...no? — ZhouBoTong

Here is a hand.

Gasp! :scream:

Rocks, as defined by the English language, are a bunch of human observations. So the status of the observer is relevant. But I know you disagree with that. — Echarmion

Yes, I disagree with that because it's obviously wrong. It's ludicrous for human observations to have preexisted humans, yet rocks did. They did so for millions of years. So, again, you're doing something wrong.

All of these are conclusion we have drawn based on observations. So it's true that, in the world we observe, rocks exist independently of any specific observer. It just doesn't follow that they exist independently of observation, period. — Echarmion

Who was observing rocks when no one existed for there to be any observation of anything at all? Ludicrous.

I do like the term "coherent" though. Since your position is that idealism is absurd on the face of it and a deviation from ordinary language, I think "coregent" with it's connotation of something being incomprehensible as language, is apt. But I know you refuse to let anyone summarize your position. — Echarmion

No, it's okay for people to summarise my position when they're competent enough to do so correctly.

I'm not claiming that it's incomprehensible as a language. I'm making points that it's unsound or a bad way of speaking or a combination of the two.

Didn't you just say it's logically possible? Anyways I don't accept that "absurd as a deviation from ordinary language use" is a relevant criticism. — Echarmion

There was an "either" there. That clearly means that I don't think that it's necessarily impossible. And it doesn't matter whether or not you accept it, because you're wrong either way.

You could show us how the premise is false. But you won't, will you? — Echarmion

The world preexisted us, so it preexisted our minds, so your premise that the world is a picture in our minds is false.

One wonders why everyone misunderstands you. — Echarmion

It's not everyone. Some understand me better than others.

It's expressed in the quote. It's unreasonable for you to expect me to do anything else here. How can I show you without expressing it? You're basically asking me to express it without expressing it, which is obviously an unreasonable request.
— S

Right, that's my point. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your point is that you're being unreasonable? We agree for once!

If you think that it is false that a rule can only exist as expressed in language, then the onus is on your to give evidence of this. — Metaphysician Undercover

Each of us have a burden, with respect to what each of us have claimed, unless I retract my stronger claim and revert to scepticism. Then it would just be on you.

Anyway, I'll think about and address your argument at a later time, as I'm just about to go out. :victory:

First, we were talking about word usage. — Terrapin Station

That's okay, the reasoning I used there is basically the same in either context.

The moral sense of "it's right" is that it's how you feel about interpersonal behavior, the behavior that you'd prefer.

Moral shoulds (rather than, say, conditional shoulds--conditional shoulds being that "if S wants y, S should do x, because that will give S y") are just a way of saying that you'd prefer if everyone behaved how you prefer . . . which of course makes sense, given what preferences are. There's nothing more to moral "shoulds" than that. — Terrapin Station

I don't think it has to be everyone. I'm not a moral universalist. But otherwise, sure. I don't really disagree on the preference thing. I just call it moral judgement, which is based on moral feelings. But we seem to be pretty much talking about the same thing here. Calling them "preferences" invites those stupid comparisons to ice cream and the like. At least combine it with "moral" each time, so you get the term "moral preferences".

You are conflating rules with the expression of rules; that's where you are going astray in your thinking. — Janus

Spot on, as ever. :up: