Posted by alexandra_k on January 17, 2005, at 15:36:12
In reply to Re: Wittgenstein on thought, posted by zeugma on January 16, 2005, at 11:49:35
I guess all philosophers think of themselves as practicing 'philosophical hygene'. Exposing the meaninglessness of others unresolved issues etc.
I am not sure that Wittgenstein's brand forces us into metaphysics (thinking here of "Philosophical Investigations"). That is the stuff about the essence being of no interest to us. I guess Wittgenstein is a bit of a behaviourist. He talks about the USE of language the USE of terms the MARK (ie practice) of thinking, games etc. Then after he has pointed out our usage he says 'explanation has to stop somewhere - we hit bedrock - my spade is turned'. In other words, to say anymore is to talk metaphysics. To try to penetrate the phenomena and dig out the 'illusory' essence. He thinks we shouldn't do that. Once the practice has been described then that is all we can say. What is hidden is of 'no interest to us'.
>Paradox: this drives us into metaphysics, which is where W. wanted to guide us from.
Of course here is the cue to go 'bollocks'. You haven't explained - you have given up on an explanation. You say 'your spade is turned' and all that means is that you have given up. It is like Wittgenstein on thought. He points out the practice and that is all. If we say 'but what is it about the internal state of the person that enables them to go on in the same way' then all he can say is 'explanation has to stop somewhere'. He doesn't explain (but then he doesn't profess to). If we want more then we can talk about grasping a proposition etc. But he wouldn't have liked that. Me: I do, I think there is a whole heap more to be said. Productive theorising too.
Oh. Hey, if possible worlds in which a proposition is true and false delineate the meaning of a proposition then there are problems with tautologies and contradictions. The problem is that they would have to mean the same thing or have the same content becasue tautologies are true in all possible worlds and contradictions are true in no possible world. So 2+2=4 and p=p have the same content or meaning. Some people are ok with that (the best defence I have heard was that tautologies and contradictions are actually contentless). Would be interested to know if you are ok with that.
> Skinner practices a method, and as long as the behaviorism is 'methodological', not 'logical', it isn't contradictory.
True, I guess I was thinking of the contradiction in taking it to be a 'theory of mind'. Maybe 'logical' rather than 'methodological' but yeah, I suppose that to take behaviourism as a 'theory of mind' is pretty straightfowardly contradictory.
You like contradictions / paradoxes eh?
>what do you think of counterpart theory? I like the idea because I try to imagine how well my numerous counterparts are doing at the moment. One of them, who can pass for me, is having a great time now. He'll be my role model :)Actually, I'm doing OK at the moment. What strikes me as remarkable is Lewis' rehabilitation of a despised philospher, Leibniz.
Yeah, though I guess we don't have to go as far as to say that we are located on the best of all possible worlds. I quite like Leibniz parallellism (pre-established harmony). I was quite taken with that in my second year.
I am not sure about this counter-part stuff. I have to admit that I haven't read Lewis, just heard an awful lot about him. Actually I did read something on why he believed possible worlds were real. Best I can figure:
We want to say that 'It is possible that I never came to babble' is true.
But why is it true (in virtue of what is it true)?
There is a possible world in which I never came to babble. That is true and the correspondance between the sentance and the possible world is what makes it true.
But does that really entail that possible worlds are real?
I am not sure about this... It is so simple... I worry that it is too simple...
I worry about my counter-parts. How come I (my conscious experience) got to be associated with the actual world me?
Is there an answer to this?
What sort of answer could we give?Confusing...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:436252
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20041210/msgs/443236.html