[quote]groo wrote:
1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts.
1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.
1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
1.2 The world divides into facts.
1.21 Each item can be the case or not the case while everything else remains the same.[/quote]Please define “world”, “case”, “fact”, “thing”, “totality”, “determines”, “is”, “not”, “logic”, “space”, “divide”, “everything”, “remains” and “same”. Oh yeah, if you could define “define” while you’re at it that would be jist peachy keen as well.
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts.
1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.
1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
1.2 The world divides into facts.
1.21 Each item can be the case or not the case while everything else remains the same.[/quote]
Is that a fact?[/quote]
Nope, it’s a serie of analytical truthes… aka tautologies.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts.
1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.
1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
1.2 The world divides into facts.
1.21 Each item can be the case or not the case while everything else remains the same.[/quote]Please define “world”, “case”, “fact”, “thing”, “totality”, “determines”, “is”, “not”, “logic”, “space”, “divide”, “everything”, “remains” and “same”. Oh yeah, if you could define “define” while you’re at it that would be jist peachy keen as well.
[/quote]
Actually, Wittgenstein DOES define all these words in his tractatus.
But at this point, he acknowledges the circularity of these truthes. Declares them tautologic. And as such empty of meaning.
Hence the mystical conclusion : .
6.522 There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest.
They are what is mystical.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts.
1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.
1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
1.2 The world divides into facts.
1.21 Each item can be the case or not the case while everything else remains the same.[/quote]
Is that a fact?[/quote]
Nope, it’s a serie of analytical truthes… aka tautologies.
[/quote]
I think abandoned is a bit harsh…perhaps thought it so obvious it wasn’t worth defending to those too simple to get it might be more of Witt’s style… He did think it answered every philosophical question ever at least for a time.
Anyway
http://people.umass.edu/phil335-klement-2/tlp/tlp.html
In the original and two translations side by side.
"Anthony Kenny provides a useful analogy for understanding Wittgenstein’s logical atomism: a slightly modified game of chess.[25] Just like objects in states of affairs, the chess pieces do not alone constitute the gameâ??their arrangements, together with the pieces (objects) themselves, determine the state of affairs.[23]
Through Kenny’s chess analogy, we can see the relationship between Wittgenstein’s logical atomism and his picture theory of representation.[26] For the sake of this analogy, the chess pieces are objects, they and their positions constitute states of affairs and therefore facts, and the totality of facts is the entire particular game of chess
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts.
1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.
1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
1.2 The world divides into facts.
1.21 Each item can be the case or not the case while everything else remains the same.[/quote]
Is that a fact?[/quote]
Nope, it’s a serie of analytical truthes… aka tautologies.
[/quote]
I think abandoned is a bit harsh…perhaps thought it so obvious it wasn’t worth defending to those too simple to get it might be more of Witt’s style… He did think it answered every philosophical question ever at least for a time.
Anyway
http://people.umass.edu/phil335-klement-2/tlp/tlp.html
In the original and two translations side by side.
"Anthony Kenny provides a useful analogy for understanding Wittgenstein’s logical atomism: a slightly modified game of chess.[25] Just like objects in states of affairs, the chess pieces do not alone constitute the gameâ??their arrangements, together with the pieces (objects) themselves, determine the state of affairs.[23]
Through Kenny’s chess analogy, we can see the relationship between Wittgenstein’s logical atomism and his picture theory of representation.[26] For the sake of this analogy, the chess pieces are objects, they and their positions constitute states of affairs and therefore facts, and the totality of facts is the entire particular game of chess
[/quote]
As perceived by humans, not necessarily in that state without a human mind working its magic.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts.
1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.
1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
1.2 The world divides into facts.
1.21 Each item can be the case or not the case while everything else remains the same.[/quote]Please define “world”, “case”, “fact”, “thing”, “totality”, “determines”, “is”, “not”, “logic”, “space”, “divide”, “everything”, “remains” and “same”. Oh yeah, if you could define “define” while you’re at it that would be jist peachy keen as well.
[/quote]
Actually, Wittgenstein DOES define all these words in his tractatus.
But at this point, he acknowledges the circularity of these truthes. Declares them tautologic. And as such empty of meaning.
Hence the mystical conclusion : .
6.522 There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest.
They are what is mystical.[/quote]
I think he would be held as denying many apriori things as facts as well. Or at least meaningful facts, insomuch as anything that isn’t a fact in matching up with how we view the universe is either a tautology or ultimately unknowable. And that arguing over most of these things is a masturbatory pursuit at best.
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts.
1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.
1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
1.2 The world divides into facts.
1.21 Each item can be the case or not the case while everything else remains the same.[/quote]
Is that a fact?[/quote]
Nope, it’s a serie of analytical truthes… aka tautologies.
[/quote]
I think abandoned is a bit harsh…perhaps thought it so obvious it wasn’t worth defending to those too simple to get it might be more of Witt’s style… He did think it answered every philosophical question ever at least for a time.
Anyway
http://people.umass.edu/phil335-klement-2/tlp/tlp.html
In the original and two translations side by side.
"Anthony Kenny provides a useful analogy for understanding Wittgenstein’s logical atomism: a slightly modified game of chess.[25] Just like objects in states of affairs, the chess pieces do not alone constitute the gameÃ?¢??their arrangements, together with the pieces (objects) themselves, determine the state of affairs.[23]
Through Kenny’s chess analogy, we can see the relationship between Wittgenstein’s logical atomism and his picture theory of representation.[26] For the sake of this analogy, the chess pieces are objects, they and their positions constitute states of affairs and therefore facts, and the totality of facts is the entire particular game of chess
[/quote]
As perceived by humans, not necessarily in that state without a human mind working its magic. [/quote]
Of course. This is kinda evident by the way he views metaphysics.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts.
1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.
1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
1.2 The world divides into facts.
1.21 Each item can be the case or not the case while everything else remains the same.[/quote]Please define “world”, “case”, “fact”, “thing”, “totality”, “determines”, “is”, “not”, “logic”, “space”, “divide”, “everything”, “remains” and “same”. Oh yeah, if you could define “define” while you’re at it that would be jist peachy keen as well.
[/quote]
Actually, Wittgenstein DOES define all these words in his tractatus.
But at this point, he acknowledges the circularity of these truthes. Declares them tautologic. And as such empty of meaning.
Hence the mystical conclusion : .
6.522 There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest.
They are what is mystical.[/quote]
I think he would be held as denying many apriori things as facts as well. Or at least meaningful facts, insomuch as anything that isn’t a fact in matching up with how we view the universe is either a tautology or ultimately unknowable. And that arguing over most of these things is a masturbatory pursuit at best.
[/quote]
Why this desire to denigrate a pursuit that does not necessarily lead to some ultimate truth. Isn’t exitence itself masturbatory? How is any other pursuit any better?
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts.
1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.
1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
1.2 The world divides into facts.
1.21 Each item can be the case or not the case while everything else remains the same.[/quote]
Is that a fact?[/quote]
Nope, it’s a serie of analytical truthes… aka tautologies.
[/quote]
I think abandoned is a bit harsh…perhaps thought it so obvious it wasn’t worth defending to those too simple to get it might be more of Witt’s style… He did think it answered every philosophical question ever at least for a time.
Anyway
http://people.umass.edu/phil335-klement-2/tlp/tlp.html
In the original and two translations side by side.
"Anthony Kenny provides a useful analogy for understanding Wittgenstein’s logical atomism: a slightly modified game of chess.[25] Just like objects in states of affairs, the chess pieces do not alone constitute the gameÃ??Ã?¢??their arrangements, together with the pieces (objects) themselves, determine the state of affairs.[23]
Through Kenny’s chess analogy, we can see the relationship between Wittgenstein’s logical atomism and his picture theory of representation.[26] For the sake of this analogy, the chess pieces are objects, they and their positions constitute states of affairs and therefore facts, and the totality of facts is the entire particular game of chess
[/quote]
As perceived by humans, not necessarily in that state without a human mind working its magic. [/quote]
Of course. This is kinda evident by the way he views metaphysics.[/quote]
I havent read his work, not sure what his views are…
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts.
1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.
1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
1.2 The world divides into facts.
1.21 Each item can be the case or not the case while everything else remains the same.[/quote]Please define “world”, “case”, “fact”, “thing”, “totality”, “determines”, “is”, “not”, “logic”, “space”, “divide”, “everything”, “remains” and “same”. Oh yeah, if you could define “define” while you’re at it that would be jist peachy keen as well.
[/quote]
Actually, Wittgenstein DOES define all these words in his tractatus.
But at this point, he acknowledges the circularity of these truthes. Declares them tautologic. And as such empty of meaning.
Hence the mystical conclusion : .
6.522 There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest.
They are what is mystical.[/quote]
I think he would be held as denying many apriori things as facts as well. Or at least meaningful facts, insomuch as anything that isn’t a fact in matching up with how we view the universe is either a tautology or ultimately unknowable. And that arguing over most of these things is a masturbatory pursuit at best.
[/quote]
Can I ask if there any accpeted a priori truths - I understand the concept but it seems to be somewhat conteversial? I know that maths is often given, but it seems that 4 is in the concept of 2+2, because 2 and 2 is not the same as 2… if that makes sense???
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts.
1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.
1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
1.2 The world divides into facts.
1.21 Each item can be the case or not the case while everything else remains the same.[/quote]Please define “world”, “case”, “fact”, “thing”, “totality”, “determines”, “is”, “not”, “logic”, “space”, “divide”, “everything”, “remains” and “same”. Oh yeah, if you could define “define” while you’re at it that would be jist peachy keen as well.
[/quote]
Actually, Wittgenstein DOES define all these words in his tractatus.
But at this point, he acknowledges the circularity of these truthes. Declares them tautologic. And as such empty of meaning.
Hence the mystical conclusion : .
6.522 There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest.
They are what is mystical.[/quote]
I think he would be held as denying many apriori things as facts as well. Or at least meaningful facts, insomuch as anything that isn’t a fact in matching up with how we view the universe is either a tautology or ultimately unknowable. And that arguing over most of these things is a masturbatory pursuit at best.
[/quote]
Why this desire to denigrate a pursuit that does not necessarily lead to some ultimate truth. Isn’t exitence itself masturbatory? How is any other pursuit any better?[/quote]
Take free will versus determinism…in the end all arguments about whether or not we have it are largely moot since we all act as if we do. Even the hardest of the hard determinists doesn’t act as though there is no free will. So the action of debate is largely meaningless…just for fun …no going to reach a conclusion that will be absolute.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts.
1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.
1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
1.2 The world divides into facts.
1.21 Each item can be the case or not the case while everything else remains the same.[/quote]Please define “world”, “case”, “fact”, “thing”, “totality”, “determines”, “is”, “not”, “logic”, “space”, “divide”, “everything”, “remains” and “same”. Oh yeah, if you could define “define” while you’re at it that would be jist peachy keen as well.
[/quote]
Actually, Wittgenstein DOES define all these words in his tractatus.
But at this point, he acknowledges the circularity of these truthes. Declares them tautologic. And as such empty of meaning.
Hence the mystical conclusion : .
6.522 There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest.
They are what is mystical.[/quote]
I think he would be held as denying many apriori things as facts as well. Or at least meaningful facts, insomuch as anything that isn’t a fact in matching up with how we view the universe is either a tautology or ultimately unknowable. And that arguing over most of these things is a masturbatory pursuit at best.
[/quote]
Why this desire to denigrate a pursuit that does not necessarily lead to some ultimate truth. Isn’t exitence itself masturbatory? How is any other pursuit any better?[/quote]
Take free will versus determinism…in the end all arguments about whether or not we have it are largely moot since we all act as if we do. Even the hardest of the hard determinists doesn’t act as though there is no free will. So the action of debate is largely meaningless…just for fun …no going to reach a conclusion that will be absolute.
[/quote]
agreed
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).
(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]
A thing is the total of a moleculair framework.
Or is “moleculair framework” “using it”?[/quote]
Well, i could say that you can’t know anything about molecular frameworks if you don’t already know what a thing is.
But it’s not an epistemological thread, it’s a metaphysical one.
So no, “molecular framework” is not “using it” in this context.
But
-It excludes things that exists below the “molecular framework level”.
And it excludes non-material things.
-that does not tell what allow us to say that something is a discrete “total”. Where/when do we start and stop to “totalize” ?
So i don’t think it’s a valid definition of a thing.
Actually, i believe that “the total of a molecular framework” could be a pretty good definition of a material body. A solid one, preferably.
[/quote]
A thing is our perception of a concept, which is shaped by our mind - a thing is anything our mind can isolate so that we can conceptualise it.[/quote]
perception of a concept? While perception of a concept is a ‘thing’ that’s not what a thing is. Whether you perceive them or not, things exist.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).
(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]
A thing is the total of a moleculair framework.
Or is “moleculair framework” “using it”?[/quote]
Well, i could say that you can’t know anything about molecular frameworks if you don’t already know what a thing is.
But it’s not an epistemological thread, it’s a metaphysical one.
So no, “molecular framework” is not “using it” in this context.
But
-It excludes things that exists below the “molecular framework level”.
And it excludes non-material things.
-that does not tell what allow us to say that something is a discrete “total”. Where/when do we start and stop to “totalize” ?
So i don’t think it’s a valid definition of a thing.
Actually, i believe that “the total of a molecular framework” could be a pretty good definition of a material body. A solid one, preferably.
[/quote]
A thing is our perception of a concept, which is shaped by our mind - a thing is anything our mind can isolate so that we can conceptualise it.[/quote]
perception of a concept? While perception of a concept is a ‘thing’ that’s not what a thing is. Whether you perceive them or not, things exist.[/quote]
what things? yes, i perceive the pc monitor in front of me, which i make sense of throigh my concept of what a pc monitor is, thats why i can see it as seperate from the background.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Since i got a bit more time this night, here is my take on this question.
A thing is the “result” of a difference.
A thing exists only because it is somewhat different from another thing.
It doesn’t matter if it is real or not, objective or not, material or not.
Where there is a difference in affect, percept or concept, there is a thing.
Which means that things never exist in isolation, but in a system.
It’s the relationships that determines the elements, not the other way around.
edit :
I suppose you could call that “structuralism”.
It’s both very modern (structuralism was the last good thing that happened to western philosophy before the catastrophic rise of post-modernism) and very old, since we could find similar ideas in ancient stoicism (which was the last good thing that happened to greek philosophy before the catastrophic rise of gnosticism and neo-platonism).[/quote]
I think you fell in to your tautological sink hole, but I’ll shut up lest ye make me a fool.
[quote]silee wrote:
I think you can make a case that Ontology, metaphysics, Theology and to a lesser extent epistemology are interrelated. But if i had to choose two that seem to underlay all thought that would be ontology and metaphysics. I further think that modern scientific investigation can escape metaphysics in so far as Theory, have to be supported by data and subject to peer review or replication although i don’t think this is the essence of science. The reason i say this is a team of scientist could be working to replicate a study and in the process come up with hypotheses that strike out in a new direction and after a long process lead to a new paradigm for advancing knowledge.[/quote]
The science is empirical. Just sayin’. Though yes, guided by metaphysical entities.
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
Truth is mental construct - it only makes sense if you thnk that there is an actual state of affairs - there isnt one outside of our perception of the state of affairs. Truth is correspondance with our own internal logic.[/quote]
Oh my!
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
Truth is mental construct - it only makes sense if you thnk that there is an actual state of affairs - there isnt one outside of our perception of the state of affairs. Truth is correspondance with our own internal logic.[/quote]
Oh my![/quote]
que? how about someone discusses something instead of poking fun and saying nothing more…im genuinely interested to know why you would and how you disagree with the above, please tell me.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).
(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]
A thing is the total of a moleculair framework.
Or is “moleculair framework” “using it”?[/quote]
For from Israel was it also: the workman made it; therefore it is not God: but the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces.
(Hos 8:6 KJV)
Ruminate on that.[/quote]
I do not follow. I don’t remember Hosea being quoted in a metaphysics book. [/quote]
It’s mainly because philosophers don’t like to talk about sin.
The point of my quoting this verse is to show the molecular world is only part of what exists.
More specific to what Hosea’s dealing with- Nothing that you make deserves to be bowed down to. Some might say this concern should be divorced from the study of metaphysics. But I would disagree, as the essence of your thinking is betrayed by your acting.[/quote]
Not everything is religion. There are other things.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Since i got a bit more time this night, here is my take on this question.
A thing is the “result” of a difference.
A thing exists only because it is somewhat different from another thing.
It doesn’t matter if it is real or not, objective or not, material or not.
Where there is a difference in affect, percept or concept, there is a thing.
Which means that things never exist in isolation, but in a system.
It’s the relationships that determines the elements, not the other way around.
edit :
I suppose you could call that “structuralism”.
It’s both very modern (structuralism was the last good thing that happened to western philosophy before the catastrophic rise of post-modernism) and very old, since we could find similar ideas in ancient stoicism (which was the last good thing that happened to greek philosophy before the catastrophic rise of gnosticism and neo-platonism).[/quote]
I think you fell in to your tautological sink hole, but I’ll shut up lest ye make me a fool.[/quote]
Oh, sooner or later, this line of reasoning will certainly become a circle.
But at this point, it’s not yet the case. These definitions do add some informations, or at least they raise new questions.