FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 9:20 am
We need to go back to here, because whatever that thing about everyday words needing a KFC to make sense was about, it wasn't a good answer so I don't even really care any more. The normal language games of object reference such as "this is a key" and "this key has been in my pocket all day" are sufficient for the discussion of the key, I will offer nothing but scorn if you try to make it about the molecules of the key, and then the atoms in those molecules.
You are just like a cry baby, don't do this or that or else I will cry, wail and bawl.
It is also like Muslims who threaten those who try to rationalize Islam with death threats.
That is not philosophizing.
You can scorn all you want, but I have my own discretion to end the discussion.
The normal language games of object reference such as "this is a key" and "this key has been in my pocket all day" are sufficient for the discussion of the key,
"discussion of the key" has to depend on the intended purpose.
This is sufficient only within a certain contexts which the truth of it is not truthful.
It is only true within a qualified 'ordinary-language FSRC'.
'Ordinary language' imo is good for low grade philosophy toward the well being of the individual[s] and that of humanity.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 7:29 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 7:01 am
The activity of knowing things and the things that are being known are not identical,
In this case are you not mirroring "what is knowing" with "the things that are being known" via a
reality gap between what is knowing" and that this "things that are being known?"
Reality gap? I'm just describing how our normal everyday concepts work. In normal everyday language if Harry knows that his car keys are in his pocket, then that is one thing, and the actual car keys that are in his pocket are not the same as the knowing about it. The objective fact about the car keys being be in his pocket remains even if Harry has a heart attack and dies and doesn't know anything at all about keys any more.
As I had stated, ordinary language at its best is still low grade philosophy in contrast to philosophy proper. This is what the past philosophers term as 'vulgar' thinking.
"If Harry has a heart attack and dies" it would benefit the rest of humanity to understand why Harry has a heart attack and how others can prevent themselves from having a heart attack.
This require advance scientific knowledge and advanced philosophical thinking.
Re
key or
anything, the more refined we understand about its feature the greater knowledge [molecules, atoms, quarks] will generate greater benefits than merely knowing it as a solid thing.
Note Russell,
- IS there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?
This question, which at first sight might not seem difficult, is really one of the most difficult that can be asked.
When we have realized the obstacles in the way of a straightforward and confident answer, we shall be well launched on the study of philosophy -- for philosophy is merely the attempt to answer such ultimate questions, not carelessly and dogmatically, as we do in ordinary life and even in the sciences,
but critically after exploring all that makes such questions puzzling, and after realizing all the vagueness and confusion that underlie our ordinary ideas.
https://www.ditext.com/russell/rus1.html
Are you familiar with the full range of Criticisms against Ordinary Language?
WORDS AND THINGS
A Critical Account of Linguistic Philosophy and a Study in Ideology
by ERNEST GELLNER
The Strange Death of Ordinary Language Philosophy
https://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/tuschan ... s/strange/
The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
https://iep.utm.edu/ord-lang/#H5