I’m thinking that pretty much all a child has is the essence of mum. No words or definitions. Mum may mean security, nourishment, and the like, on an instinctual or just ‘feel good’ level. — praxis
What is it to have "some concept of it" beyond being able to identify it?If we can identify something we must have some conception of it... — praxis
He doesn't use the words, perhaps; but his reactions show something.......he does not know what is 'sugar' or what is 'intruder'. — Jacques Maritain, The Cultural Impact of Empiricism
And yet here you are.First, I didn’t think you could understand me, so why bother. — Fire Ologist
Again, if you want me to respond, link my name. A common courtesy. I'll not be going over your posts looking to see if you ask me something. You are not that interesting.Second, There are fifty things prior to my posts with Leon that you didn’t respond to. — Fire Ologist
I agree. Seems I erred in expecting curtesy from you.Third, Seems muddle-headed for you expect courtesy from me. — Fire Ologist
:blush:It is an article of Banno's faith than anything like religious faith has no place at the table of philosophical discourse — Wayfarer
I don't want it to be aporetic at all. — J
It just doesn't seem all that far from saying "they would not be participating in the same activity" to saying they would not have the intuitions—the experience of the agreement of logic with what we do—that people have when they successfully do x and y. — Jamal
A student says "That seems right—roses are flowers, and some flowers fade quickly, so it makes sense that some roses might be among those that fade quickly." But the intuition that the argument is valid, is misplaced.All roses are flowers.
Some flowers fade quickly.
∴ Some roses fade quickly.
were the student replies “But unicorns don’t exist! How can Charlie have a horn?” - examples such as this can be found on these forums. The argument is valid, but for some, counterintuitive.All unicorns have horns.
Charlie is a unicorn.
∴ Charlie has a horn.
Usefulness isn't determined by some rule. That's kinda the point.If I'm misrepresenting you, surely you can lay out what determines usefulness then. — Count Timothy von Icarus
If we do not accept that the frog can be both alive and dead, then a logic that allows this is not suitable.Pick one that does the job you want done, or that will extend and enhance the conversation.
I've asked this question to Banno many times and never received anything but deflection. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I'm not sure that qualifies as an answer, even generously. — J
Yes, but there is a physical relationship present that exists irrespective of us putting it into intelligible terms. — Relativist
...but it also identifies a physical relationship among force, mass, and acceleration — Relativist
I'll differ here - it's what I do. And lead the thread off on an aside.I claim F=ma is descriptive only and has no power in itself to make anything happen. — tim wood
This might be the key here. Those who "feel an need for Universal Concepts" will make an unjustified jump to them. It'll be a transcendental argument: things are thus-and-so; the only way they can be thus-and-so is if this Universal Concept is in play; therefore......why do some of us feel a need for Universal Concepts, when others find Particular Percepts sufficient for survival? — Gnomon
The admonition is that in order to understand meaning, look to use. In order to understand what folk think, look to what they do. And here, include what they say as a part of what they do.For me, Meaning is not what we do (act on things), but what we think (manipulate imaginary notions). :smile: — Gnomon
Wittgenstein pointed out that we can't know the answer, but he admitted that he couldn't resist being pulled back into questions like that — frank
What is the overlap between logic and the world — J
Which is muddled. Not all words are nouns, so not all words name something. We do a lot more with words than just name concepts.Words name concepts. — Fire Ologist
We still have the same conclusion, the fundamental laws are violated by this conception of "individual". — Metaphysician Undercover