Was Wittgenstein a fool?

[Kriminal99]

Now, although I am well aware that there is no logical argument that will combat a belief, I am curious as to how you rationalize the fact that you are cognizant, and apparently know that you are cognizant, but still categorically deny that this cognizance has any true existential status, while at the same time, affirming the absolute reality of some external world, that you have no immediate access to, other than through the very cognizance that you deny? Now, if you’ll forgive for saying so, I find this stance to be completely illogical.

 

In addition, how do you reconcile the fact that your system is both inductive and deterministic, with the fact that induction allows for the eventuality of a false conclusion (effect), even though its substantiating premises (causes) are true? How then can any deterministic system rest upon an inductive foundation, for it would never be certain whether the coming together of two things would or would not result in an effect.

 

Jehu

 

I am having trouble making sense of the first paragraph I quoted. I'll say that you cannot word something that does not make sense to you in the way that so obviously does not make sense because it wont make sense to the other person either, as their view most likely does not consist of the nonsensical statement. Instead try highlighting your opponent's beliefs that seem to lead to this conclusion and how they seem to...

 

I'll just try to give some responses that answer what to the best of my ability to determine so are your questions. The way to deal with the problems of induction is just to keep your eyes peeled for the induction to fail. The fact that the sun rises day after day, that things fall down instead of up day after day etc etc can be taken as evidence that there is an external world. An external world which must continually prove itself on a day to day, second to second basis. It is in such an external world that determinism exists not in ones mind which depend's on induction.

[Jehu]

Kriminal99

 

I must apologize for my last post, I’m afraid I get a little frustrated by people’s inability to grasp the difference between what they simply believe, and what can be logically demonstrated. You, for instance, claim that there is an external world because that is how your mind interprets the information that it receives from your senses. In truth, however, much of what you think that you perceive immediately through the senses, is actually derived from interpretive mental processes. Motion, for example, cannot be perceived in a single instance of perception, but must be inferred from a progressive sequence of instances. By this, I mean that if it were not for the mental faculties of memory and inductive reasoning, there could be no perception of activity. Consider the case of a movie, the sort of activity that you perceive is not real, but only apparent, for there are no actual entities present on the screen that might partake of activity. Now, if one knows that it is a movie they are watching, then there is no problem, but if one is not aware of this, then the mind will posit the existence of independent entities, so as to explain the origin and cause of the apparent activity, for there can be no motion without that there is a mover. Consequently, we cannot take what we perceive to be definite evidence of anything, al least not with certainty. Can you see what I am getting at? And if we cannot demonstrate that the world is as it appears to be, then should we not look at alternative models of how it might work. Now, if the physicalist metaphysical model proved a comprehensive and coherent explanation of our common experiences, then we would not be having this conversation, but it does not. In truth, the notion of an essential substantial reality is plagued with logical absurdities.

 

The idea that the true nature of reality might be essentially cognizant has been around for at least three thousand years, and although it provides a comprehensive and coherent explanation of our experiences, while being completely free of paradoxes, it is exceedingly subtle, and difficult to understand. This, however, does not mean that it is not the correct view. Unfortunately, many, many things have turned out to be different that they appeared. The earth appeared to be flat, the stars appeared to move across the sky, and the sun appeared to rise and set, but of course, these were only illusions. Now, I do not expect that anyone should simply accept this view to be true, but since this view is entirely reasonable (logically demonstrable), I do expect that anyone who claims to be seeking the truth, will examine it, if for no other reason that to refute it. To simply say that they believe this, or don’t believe that, this I find exceedingly frustrating.

 

Jehu

[Kriminal99]

"logically demonstratable" just translates into makes sense to you...

 

I think Lehr is the one who had an answer to global skepticism that can be used to deal with any induction problem. It was that the reason that we do not know whether or not the world is an illusion is precisely because we have no reason to think that the world is an illusion. Therefore we need not concern ourselves with it until there is a reason to believe it is an illusion.

 

I always think of this as also necessitating that you look for information that contradicts what you believe, and then use this to deal with lots of kinds of skepticism.

 

A person wishing to refer to an external world need only define an external world according to this system. IE an external world is something that causes us to experience things in a manner that follows no observable rhyme or reason with respect to our own wants or desires. Or an external world is something that is the reason for why induction often works. When these things fail, then we no longer have reason to believe in an external world.

[Jehu]

Kriminal99

 

You say that, “we need not concern ourselves with it until there is a reason to believe it [the world] is an illusion.” Well consider the following “logical demonstration”. Please note that the terms I am employing here are not my own, but are drawn exclusively from the Oxford English Dictionary, under the heading of philosophical usage, and so are the conventionally prescribed meanings.

 

That which is real, has an absolute and not merely contingent existence. Such a thing is necessarily self-contained and so unrelated to anything external. Consequently, such a thing is immutable and can neither arise nor cease, therefore it is permanent. Being completely independent, such a thing can neither influence or be influence by anything outside of itself. As a result, such a thing must be completely imperceptible, for it is totally incapable of influencing the sensory organs or instruments of any external observer.

 

Now I ask you Sir, if you hold that there is indeed a “real world” out there, show me one thing that corresponds with the description given above, or would you prefer to maintain that we do not know what we mean when we say something is real? Better still, as you hold that the universe is essentially material, show me where science has been able to discover even one fundamental particle.

 

Jehu

[ughaibu]

Jehu: What you describe in your second paragraph corresponds to nothing, a complete lack of any thing. I dont know how you arrived at that paragraph but, considering the highly antagonistic nature of the terms "reality" and "nothing", you have refuted your own premises by reducto ad absurdum.

[Kriminal99]

Kriminal99

 

You say that, “we need not concern ourselves with it until there is a reason to believe it [the world] is an illusion.” Well consider the following “logical demonstration”. Please note that the terms I am employing here are not my own, but are drawn exclusively from the Oxford English Dictionary, under the heading of philosophical usage, and so are the conventionally prescribed meanings.

 

That which is real, has an absolute and not merely contingent existence. Such a thing is necessarily self-contained and so unrelated to anything external. Consequently, such a thing is immutable and can neither arise nor cease, therefore it is permanent. Being completely independent, such a thing can neither influence or be influence by anything outside of itself. As a result, such a thing must be completely imperceptible, for it is totally incapable of influencing the sensory organs or instruments of any external observer.

 

Now I ask you Sir, if you hold that there is indeed a “real world” out there, show me one thing that corresponds with the description given above, or would you prefer to maintain that we do not know what we mean when we say something is real? Better still, as you hold that the universe is essentially material, show me where science has been able to discover even one fundamental particle.

 

Jehu

 

Sounds like a bunch of gibberish to me.

 

When I think of the meaning of the word real, I would not look to the author of a dictionary but rather to the algorithm which determines how we use it. If someone asks me is the computer screen in front of me real, what might they be asking?

 

They are not asking whether or not they can percieve it, because the answer would be obviously yes. They could be asking if there is something different about it compared to others they have percieved. For example, what if I opened my monitor and it was hollow. Might I then consider the monitor not real? Yes I would. If I saw an image but when I moved to touch it realized it was a mirror image, I would call it not real.

 

If I saw another person and I asked whether or not the person was real, I might be asking if it feels the same thing I feel (which I cannot answer), as I can look at myself in the mirror and realize that what I see is connected to that which feels, and then realize that what I see also looks like other people.

 

Every time something is called not real, there is a difference between some percievable attribute of that instance of that object and the majority of instances of that object... including throughout time for example we might percieve every normal attribute of a dreamed object but then wake up and suddenly cease to percieve it and decide it was not real.

 

Therefore the definition of real is demonstrated to be this.

[paigetheoracle]

Yes but a clever sounding one! Language is just communication between people - it isn't awareness (individual consciousness). It is about sharing information or co-operating in ventures and so is social but thinking isn't. You can still know without communicating or being able to communicate this knowledge (Because you can't speak someones language or they can't speak at all, doesn't mean that they don't have the same level of awareness as you do about certain things, just they can't let you know that very easily, if at all (Basic communication only available as with primitive man i.e. gestures and sounds (emotional or visual attention seeking behaviour and explanation as opposed to complex interlectual discussions in detail). To me philosophy is like a forum - something to spark off new, living ideas, not rake over the same old coals, seeking greater and greater refinement of existing ones. On top of that Western philosophy seems preoccupied with the tools and ignores the substance of the debate in my opinion: It's like someone discussing what to use to put out a fire instead of grabbing what's ever available to do the job (In martial arts it's the concept of thinking what to do next as opposed to reacting to the situation on hand: See quotes by Bruce Lee, to see why 'form' leads to failure as opposed to living in the present moment). You can never be sure of the past or future, only the present. Likewise, only what is here in front of you is definite - the distant isn't clear and certain (recognizable/ open to a change in direction).

 

Yes, words aren't things and the problem with words is association (a french linguist, whose name I've forgotten also called them just 'signs' ). A book can just be a book to the intellect but to the emotions it can be good, bad or horrific etc. (emotional history). Then there's depth of knowledge and tangents that can lead off it that may be different, for different people (intellectual history).

 

I didn't know that about Wittgenstein either but other rumours about his hatred of Jews were that he was himself had Jewish ancestory on one side of his family and was trying to deny it or that he caught a sexually transmitted disease from a Jewish prostitute. I personally feel it was something to do with his attempts to become an artist and his struggles to get established but this is going a little off topic.

 

I loved Shopenhauer too! Mostly though I love Tescoes Shopping Hour, where you can get everything at a discount if you can fill your trolley and get it through the till in the alloted time (or was that a game hosted by Dale Winton?):confused:

[Kriminal99]

What happens when you just skip all this stuff and post to "put the water on the fire" is that people on here respond by saying "Wittgenstein proclaimed that definitions are not ostensive therefore what you say cannot be true".

 

There is this problem where if people are forced to submit in school to ideas like this in order to get good grades, many will just accept the ideas as correct to get in better with their teachers or just not be fighting a battle they cannot win. As they wish others to submit to the same ideas they (so they are not shown to be foolish) they simply refuse to consider any ideas which contradict what they learn in school.

 

For most people, their pride is more important than finding the truth. So rather than just post the finished product which would be ignored because it contradicts incorrect statements taught in school, I must address the incorrect beliefs first.

 

Of course then usually what happens is most of them get to a point where they realize they do not understand the subject or it looks like I am correct and say something like "you don't understand, go read the book" which translates too, "Other people think you are wrong and I agree with them" which of course translates to "I don't want to be wrong" How people so motivated can be considered qualified to participate in any intellectual discipline is beyond me. (Referring to the fact that scientists etc are trained/brainwashed in the same manner)

[Jehu]

ughaibu

 

I have put forward no propositions Sir, I have merely stated what the term “real” means from a philosophical sense. If you do not know where I got this definition from, it is because you cannot comprehend, for I have stated its origin to be the Oxford English Dictionary. What’s more, contrary to your obviously limited understanding of the term “absurd”, it does not automatically apply to anything that happens to be beyond your ability to understand. In a philosophical argument, it is expected that you will support you assertions will logic, and not with disparaging remarks. Perhaps then we may be able to make some headway.

 

Jehu

[Jehu]

Kriminal99

 

First let me say that the Dictionary is not authored, it is compiled by a team of lexicographers from thousands of books, papers, magazines, catalogues, etc. The reason for this is to ensure that the definitions reflect the common meaning of a term, and not what an individual user means by the term. Now, I understand that you have your own meaning for the term “real”, and I understand that this meaning a naive one, but when I use the term “real”, I mean it in its philosophical sense, and not as you are interpreting it. So you see, It is because I believed that I was taking part in a philosophical discussion, that I was under the misunderstanding that you would understand what I was saying. Perhaps if you might acquaint yourself with some of these more precise meanings, then we may be able to see one another points more clearly. Perhaps then my arguments will no longer sound like “gibberish” to you.

 

Jehu

[Kriminal99]

My definition naive? It's just an algorithm that determines how and when the word is used on a day to day basis. As opposed to a completely arbitrary and unfounded explanation of it according to random people who naively believe their definition is "the" universal philisophical definition of the word whatever on earth that means.

 

That the definition of a word like real is nothing more than how it is used is something I agree with wittgenstein with, but I do not believe that means it cannot be described.

[ughaibu]

Jehu:

From the second sentence, your paragraph follows the objection, I have been using, in discussion with you, on the determinism thread. From that thread, you are aware that I understand your paragraph.

You describe, in that paragraph, an object which doesn't come into existence or cease to exist, which has no location and performs no action either internally or externally, an object that can never be perceived by any means or thing. This is a pretty comprehensive definition of the non-existent, ie that which doesn't exist, "nothing", the "complete lack of any thing". As your paragraph begins by proposing requirements of existence for an object to be real, you have arrived at a contradiction or logical absurdity. So, something has been refuted, and whatever it is occurs before sentence two in your paragraph, doesn't it? Accordingly, I wrote "I dont know how you arrived at that paragraph", I admit that I could've worded my post more explicitly but, considering our previous discussion, there was sufficient for you to follow.

The problems centre on your first sentence and are as follow:

1) what is an "absolute" existence, a thing either exists or it doesn't, there are no degrees of existence.

2) why have you chosen the phrase "not merely contingent" where the word 'necessary' would seem sufficient and less vague, presumably a distinction is implied but without an explanation, that distinction is obscure.

3) why does an object require 'necessary existence' in order to qualify as real. This sounds like a strictly determinist position yet you have made no mention of determinism.

4) How does sentence one lead to sentence two?

 

I would say the basic requirements for an object to be real are that it be external, common and verifiable. As an example: there is a game in which the contestants stare at each other, the loser being the first to laugh. This is something real, it can be observed, discussed, taught and remembered, bets can be placed on the outcome and the results will rarely be in dispute. How is this real event absolutely or necessarilly existent?

[Jehu]

My definition naive? It's just an algorithm that determines how and when the word is used on a day to day basis. As opposed to a completely arbitrary and unfounded explanation of it according to random people who naively believe their definition is "the" universal philisophical definition of the word whatever on earth that means.

 

That the definition of a word like real is nothing more than how it is used is something I agree with wittgenstein with, but I do not believe that means it cannot be described.

I sorry Sir, but you hold any entirely erroneous view of the way that languages operate. The words in a language mean whatever the users of a language (as a whole) prescribe them to mean, this is what enables them to communicate at all. Words are merely pointers, and in this way they are ostensive, but the objects to which they point are mental concepts, and so are not perceptible to others, and so cannot be defined ostensively. By this I mean that we cannot literally point to a mental concept, as we would say to a bicycle.

 

What makes it possible to communicate a concept is that we have developed a language which comprises conventionally prescribed pointers (symbols) with which we have previously agreed to associate certain kinds of basic concepts. Now, if we do not know what these associated concepts are, such as with a foreign language that we do not know, or if we decide to associate some other concept of our own with the same symbol, the ability to communicate is completely lost. So you see, we cannot simply disregard what the general user of the language hold a word to mean, and still expect that they will understand what we are saying. Is this not reasonable Sir?

 

The philosophical meaning of a term, is a precise meaning that has been agreed upon by the philosophical community, so as ensure that philosophers are able to understand one another, and not become embroiled in endless arguments as to what a given term means. Could you imagine Sir, if one simple used whatever symbols one wished to express a mathematical formula, what sort of nonsense would that produce?

 

Jehu

[Jehu]

ughaibu,

 

Let me begin by saying that what I described was not an object, but an entity. I make this distinction because the term, “object”, implies a material thing that can be seen or touched. I said that this entity was “real”, and by this I meant that it was absolute, independent and immutable. Being immutable, such an entity must be permanent, for it must be self-contained and perfect. That which is non-existent is simply beyond description, for how can that which does not exist be said to have any defining qualities or characteristics? Now, this one absolute and immutable entity is the whole of reality, and so whatever is contained within it must necessarily be existent, and whatever is not contained within it is necessarily non-existent.

 

The reason that I chose the term, “contingent”, is because that which is contingent is dependent upon something else for it existence. A shadow, for example, is dependent upon a light source and an opaque object for its existence. A shadow cannot be said to exist in the absolute sense, for it is not self contained, but we cannot deny it any existence whatsoever, thus we say it has a merely contingent existence. So you see, there are two modes of existence, that which is absolute and that which is only contingent.

 

We have all had dreams at one time or another. When we dream, the people and props that inhabit our dream world are not real, they do not possess properties or substance, they are merely contingent entities (illusions) brought about by the play of the dreamer’s cognizant mind. Because they are only contingent, these dream things undergo constant modification, brought about by the interaction of the dreamer’s cognitive awareness and knowledge (memories), and driven by the faculty known as reason. Now the people in a dream do not know they are dreaming, or that the cognizance they appear to exhibit is not their own, but that of the dreamer. From the point of view of the dream people, they are thoroughly convinced that the things around them are real, independent, and lasting entities. This is of course not true, for it is only the cognizance of the dreamer that is “real”. Nevertheless, these dream people can still play games and laugh.

 

Jehu

[ughaibu]

Okay, I understand now why you opted for "not merely contingent". Naturally reality in total is not merely contingent, as there is nothing but that reality itself, also there is nothing external for which reality can have an existent/non-existent status. To human beings, discussing reality, reality is real, there is no question about this, if one is discussing illusions, one discusses which features of their existence are required for them to be illusory.

A shadow is a real thing, just as much as the Earth is a real thing, neither is permanent and both depend on the sun for their existence. Dreams are quite different, their existence is private, personal and internal. Real things exist publicly, externally and without prejudice.

 

I suspect that I misunderstood post 21 to refer to objects existing within reality, when you were actually discussing reality overall. In either case the contradiction between existence and non-existence applies, the difference being the location of the "observer".

[Jehu]

Ughaibu,

 

Good, now we are beginning to have a dialog.

 

Of course “reality is real”, for it could not be otherwise? This, however, is not in dispute. What is in dispute, is the reality of things, and by the term, “things”, I mean “any idea, feeling, object, property, or activity, which may be perceived or thought about.” When someone says that a shadow is real, they mean that it may be perceived, through the senses, and that it is not a product of their imagination. They do not mean to say that a shadow possesses it own self-inhering properties, or that it is those self-inherent properties that give rise to the shadows activities. Apart from the light source and the opaque object, there is no shadow, for these are its causes. Such a thing, although certainly existent, cannot be said to be real, but is merely contingent.

 

Now, the question is this: “Is their any “thing” that is not contingent, and therefore, not dependent upon external causes for it existence?”

 

Jehu

[ughaibu]

Jehu: Imagine a leopard planning to ambush prey, it might choose to hide behind a tree or a rock, or it might choose to hide in a shadow. The shadow is as real and as much part of the landscape as are the tree and the rock.

In post 21 you offer to logically demonstrate that the world is an illusion, by using the requirements, of things that exist, to be real, and citing a reputable dictionary as your source for definitions. That dictionary will have definitions of the terms reality and illusion that are antagonistic, incompatible and mutually exclusive, that is to say, you are trying to demonstrate a contradiction. As it is explicit in the rules of logic that any proof of a contradiction is false, you are attempting the impossible. The question is, what is wrong with your demonstration?