FSRK = Language Games?

[Veritas Aequitas]

When you state "When I pat my dog or cook an egg" each colored elements in that sentence belongs to a specific language game.

You forgot to clarify if you are saying that according to Wittgenstein's theory this is the case or have you just stolen the theory and now you think it's one of your KFCs?

If it's the former, I think you need to read your wittgenstein sources more carefully as the attempt to take on the big W guy that you seem to be engaged in right now is founded apparently on misunderstandings.

My point is, the meaning of each of the word will vary in accordance to the rules of a specific language game.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is one interpretation of 'On Certainty' which aligns with my FSRC [FSRK].

Wittgenstein’s On Certainty and Relativism
Martin Kusch
I shall give my own interpretation of On Certainty in relation to epistemic relativism.
I now shall try to give a brief summary of these arguments.
I begin with the “pro” case and shall focus on three authors, Paul Boghossian, Anthony Grayling and Rudolf Haller.

Features of an Epistemic System or Practice
(1) Dependence: A belief has an epistemic status (as epistemically justified or unjustified) only relative to an epistemic system or practice (=SP). (Cf. Williams 2007, p. 94).
(2) Plurality: There are, have been, or could be, more than one such epistemic system or practice.
(3) Exclusiveness: SPs are exclusive of one another.

SP is not exactly the same with my FSRC, but the fundamental is the same, i.e. there is the Framework and System underlying it.

You [FDP] asked me to refer to A C Grayling's video re Wittgenstein, but according to Kusch, Grayling is in the pro Epistemic Relativism and Practice camp which I argue aligns with my FSRC;

Grayling and Haller cite the following paragraphs in evidence:

65. When language-games change, then there is a change in concepts, and with the concepts the meanings of words change.
95. The propositions describing this world-picture might be part of a kind of mythology.
99. And the bank of the river consists partly of hard rock, subject to no alteration or only to an imperceptible one, partly of sand, which now in one place now in another gets washed away, or deposited.
166. The difficulty is to realize the groundlessness of our believing.
256. On the other hand a language game does change with time.
336. But what men consider reasonable or unreasonable changes.

§§65, 99, 256, and 336 all emphasize the occurrence of fundamental change: in language-games, concepts, word meaning, and rationality.
This for Grayling is “classically strong relativism” since it “constitutes a claim that the framework within which claims to knowledge and challenges of doubt equally make sense is such that its change can reverse what counted as either” (2001, p. 308).
§§94, 95, and 166 in turn raise the question “what if the background—e.g. your picture of the world—[were] different?” (Haller 1995, p. 229)
Does not Wittgenstein imply that there is nothing that can be said about such a scenario?
At least nothing evaluative?
It appears that “we remain without any ground for the decision between conflicting judgements based on different world pictures.” (Haller 1995, p. 230)
Boghossian suggests that it is first and foremost paragraphs §§609-612 that express a commitment to epistemic relativism (2006, p. 107):

609 Suppose we met people who … instead of the physicist … consult an oracle.
610 … —If we call this ‘wrong’ aren’t we using our language-game as a base from which to combat theirs?
611 Are we right or wrong to combat it? Of course there are all sorts of slogans which will be used to support our proceedings.
612 Where two principles clash that cannot be reconciled with one another, then each man declares the other a fool and heretic.
613 I said I would ‘combat’ the other man,—but wouldn’t I give him reasons? Certainly; but … at the end of reasons comes persuasion.
614 (Think what happens when missionaries convert natives.)

[Skepdick]

My point is, the meaning of each of the word will vary in accordance to the rules of a specific language game.

The meaning of the game varies also. Depending on who's playing, why they are playing, when there are playing, where they are playing...

In context of philosophy the games are mostly meaningless. Because they are mostly inconsequential.

[FlashDangerpants]

When you state "When I pat my dog or cook an egg" each colored elements in that sentence belongs to a specific language game.

You forgot to clarify if you are saying that according to Wittgenstein's theory this is the case or have you just stolen the theory and now you think it's one of your KFCs?

If it's the former, I think you need to read your wittgenstein sources more carefully as the attempt to take on the big W guy that you seem to be engaged in right now is founded apparently on misunderstandings.

My point is, the meaning of each of the word will vary in accordance to the rules of a specific language game.

That's complete bullshit. It doesn't even fit with your own attempt to hijack langauge games and treat them as some KFC-bucket.

A language game has to account for basic propositional forms such as sentences with a subject and a predicate etc. I don't need to reference a cat langaguage game and a mat language game and a sitting language game to understand 'the cat sat on the mat'.

[FlashDangerpants]

You [FDP] asked me to refer to A C Grayling's video re Wittgenstein, but according to Kusch, Grayling is in the pro Epistemic Relativism and Practice camp which I argue aligns with my FSRC;

Nothing written by anyone except you aligns with your KFC-buckets. You have laden that thing down with so much extraneous crap such as your "credibility" nonsese that nobody else dcan possibly mean any of it. Just referencing frameworks does not commit anybody to any particular similarity to your shit.

[promethean75]

1000001208.jpg (45.68 KiB) Viewed 1292 times

[Veritas Aequitas]

You [FDP] asked me to refer to A C Grayling's video re Wittgenstein, but according to Kusch, Grayling is in the pro Epistemic Relativism and Practice camp which I argue aligns with my FSRC;

Nothing written by anyone except you aligns with your KFC-buckets. You have laden that thing down with so much extraneous crap such as your "credibility" nonsese that nobody else dcan possibly mean any of it. Just referencing frameworks does not commit anybody to any particular similarity to your shit.

That is because you are ignorant and when indicate the clues do not have the intelligence to link Kusch and Grayling's views in alignment with my FSRC.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You [FDP] asked me to refer to A C Grayling's video re Wittgenstein, but according to Kusch, Grayling is in the pro Epistemic Relativism and Practice camp which I argue aligns with my FSRC;

Nothing written by anyone except you aligns with your KFC-buckets. You have laden that thing down with so much extraneous crap such as your "credibility" nonsese that nobody else dcan possibly mean any of it. Just referencing frameworks does not commit anybody to any particular similarity to your shit.

Suggest you read this thread and comment therein:
Relativism, Contextualism, Perspectivism & FSRC
viewtopic.php?p=701472#p701472

There is more to that which other philosophers referred to in addition to their mentioning 'framework' and you need intelligence to reconcile them to my FSRC.
Did you reread W's On Certainty with a consideration of my FSRC? If not in alignment, why?

[FlashDangerpants]

Did you reread W's On Certainty with a consideration of my FSRC? If not in alignment, why?

Absolutley no need to waste a bunch of time on that. I told you I would re-read it if you show signs of having actually read and understood it. So far you are only showing signs of delusions of grandeur.

[FlashDangerpants]

You [FDP] asked me to refer to A C Grayling's video re Wittgenstein, but according to Kusch, Grayling is in the pro Epistemic Relativism and Practice camp which I argue aligns with my FSRC;

Nothing written by anyone except you aligns with your KFC-buckets. You have laden that thing down with so much extraneous crap such as your "credibility" nonsese that nobody else dcan possibly mean any of it. Just referencing frameworks does not commit anybody to any particular similarity to your shit.

That is because you are ignorant and when indicate the clues do not have the intelligence to link Kusch and Grayling's views in alignment with my FSRC.

You have laden that thing down with so much extraneous crap such as your "credibility" nonsese that nobody else dcan possibly mean any of it

[Veritas Aequitas]

Did you reread W's On Certainty with a consideration of my FSRC? If not in alignment, why?

Absolutley no need to waste a bunch of time on that. I told you I would re-read it if you show signs of having actually read and understood it. So far you are only showing signs of delusions of grandeur.

This is like a theist who insist to the non-theist, I will not discuss the contradictions in the Bible with you unless you believe God exists as in the Bible.

So far, I have reread one round of On Certainty and few secondary texts [book and articles].
I have extracted the relevant paragraphs that support my views.
On the basis I am an average reader, I would not have missed out what they are conveying about W On Certainty's themes.
W's On Certainty's theme fundamentally aligns with the principles of my FSRC.

I am not trying to force you on any views but merely ask what is 'your' understanding of W's 'On Certainty' main theme.
To do so, it is only logical you have to read it again.

[FlashDangerpants]

Did you reread W's On Certainty with a consideration of my FSRC? If not in alignment, why?

Absolutley no need to waste a bunch of time on that. I told you I would re-read it if you show signs of having actually read and understood it. So far you are only showing signs of delusions of grandeur.

This is like a theist who insist to the non-theist, I will not discuss the contradictions in the Bible with you unless you believe God exists as in the Bible.

So far, I have reread one round of On Certainty and few secondary texts [book and articles].
I have extracted the relevant paragraphs that support my views.
On the basis I am an average reader, I would not have missed out what they are conveying about W On Certainty's themes.
W's On Certainty's theme fundamentally aligns with the principles of my FSRC.

You haven't shown any signs of an improved understanding. All you've done is claim Wittgenstein agreed with your KFC-bucket theory. It's absurd so there's no reason to pick up and refresh.

You are not an average reader, you are very much worse. You can read a philosophy paper 20 times and not gain a basic understanding of its argument. Not many people could manage that.

I am not trying to force you on any views but merely ask what is 'your' understanding of W's 'On Certainty' main theme.
To do so, it is only logical you have to read it again.

Why? You already listed some interpretations and I told you which looks like most like mine. I probably only reference the book when I am discussing either how we lack the tooling to even make sense of a question doubting 'reality' or to pooh pooh the idea of some extra-double-special-reality. I might occasionally mention something more complicated to do with competences, but if your reading hasn't unearthed that independently, I see no reason for me to check my sources on that one yet.

At the moment, I just think you should be encouraged to read one book properly such that you can usefully relate its contents to something other people write (hint: just saying philosopher X would have liked my FSCKs if he wasn't dead doen't do that). Sadly I cannot persuade you to do that with a book that is easier to read, and so we are stuck with one of Wittgenstein's slightly ambiguous texts. Still, if you don't show a true understanding of it and relate the contents of that to something I actually wrote, you aren't in a position to lord anything over me and I don't need to concern myself any further.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Absolutley no need to waste a bunch of time on that. I told you I would re-read it if you show signs of having actually read and understood it. So far you are only showing signs of delusions of grandeur.

This is like a theist who insist to the non-theist, I will not discuss the contradictions in the Bible with you unless you believe God exists as in the Bible.

So far, I have reread one round of On Certainty and few secondary texts [book and articles].
I have extracted the relevant paragraphs that support my views.
On the basis I am an average reader, I would not have missed out what they are conveying about W On Certainty's themes.
W's On Certainty's theme fundamentally aligns with the principles of my FSRC.

You haven't shown any signs of an improved understanding. All you've done is claim Wittgenstein agreed with your KFC-bucket theory. It's absurd so there's no reason to pick up and refresh.

You are not an average reader, you are very much worse. You can read a philosophy paper 20 times and not gain a basic understanding of its argument. Not many people could manage that.

I am not trying to force you on any views but merely ask what is 'your' understanding of W's 'On Certainty' main theme.
To do so, it is only logical you have to read it again.

Why? You already listed some interpretations and I told you which looks like most like mine. I probably only reference the book when I am discussing either how we lack the tooling to even make sense of a question doubting 'reality' or to pooh pooh the idea of some extra-double-special-reality. I might occasionally mention something more complicated to do with competences, but if your reading hasn't unearthed that independently, I see no reason for me to check my sources on that one yet.

At the moment, I just think you should be encouraged to read one book properly such that you can usefully relate its contents to something other people write (hint: just saying philosopher X would have liked my FSCKs if he wasn't dead doen't do that). Sadly I cannot persuade you to do that with a book that is easier to read, and so we are stuck with one of Wittgenstein's slightly ambiguous texts. Still, if you don't show a true understanding of it and relate the contents of that to something I actually wrote, you aren't in a position to lord anything over me and I don't need to concern myself any further.

You are strawmanning which is a sort of childish schoolyard put downs.
What I have referred to is FSRC [also FSRK or FSK] and not something else.

The point is this;

1. You condemned my FSRC as useless, nonsense, stupid[?] ..
2. You are banking hard on W's language game to support your arguments [where relevant].
3. You seem to think very highly of W as the founder of your favored OLP.
4. I argue W's language is basically a subset of my FSRC.
5. Thus in condemning my FSRC you are also condemning W's language game in which you are relying to support your argument.
6. I accused you of not understanding W's On Certainty's fundamental and main theme.

Note the ? in the OP.
I was inviting views in the OP and hopefully note what others are saying about the topic.
I have given clues to support my point in my OP and later posts but have yet to give sufficient details to justify W language games is a subset of my FSRC.
I will do that soon in a post "Why W language games is Subset of the FSRC".

[FlashDangerpants]

This is like a theist who insist to the non-theist, I will not discuss the contradictions in the Bible with you unless you believe God exists as in the Bible.

So far, I have reread one round of On Certainty and few secondary texts [book and articles].
I have extracted the relevant paragraphs that support my views.
On the basis I am an average reader, I would not have missed out what they are conveying about W On Certainty's themes.
W's On Certainty's theme fundamentally aligns with the principles of my FSRC.

You haven't shown any signs of an improved understanding. All you've done is claim Wittgenstein agreed with your KFC-bucket theory. It's absurd so there's no reason to pick up and refresh.

You are not an average reader, you are very much worse. You can read a philosophy paper 20 times and not gain a basic understanding of its argument. Not many people could manage that.

I am not trying to force you on any views but merely ask what is 'your' understanding of W's 'On Certainty' main theme.
To do so, it is only logical you have to read it again.

Why? You already listed some interpretations and I told you which looks like most like mine. I probably only reference the book when I am discussing either how we lack the tooling to even make sense of a question doubting 'reality' or to pooh pooh the idea of some extra-double-special-reality. I might occasionally mention something more complicated to do with competences, but if your reading hasn't unearthed that independently, I see no reason for me to check my sources on that one yet.

At the moment, I just think you should be encouraged to read one book properly such that you can usefully relate its contents to something other people write (hint: just saying philosopher X would have liked my FSCKs if he wasn't dead doen't do that). Sadly I cannot persuade you to do that with a book that is easier to read, and so we are stuck with one of Wittgenstein's slightly ambiguous texts. Still, if you don't show a true understanding of it and relate the contents of that to something I actually wrote, you aren't in a position to lord anything over me and I don't need to concern myself any further.

You are strawmanning which is a sort of childish schoolyard put downs.
What I have referred to is FSRC [also FSRK or FSK] and not something else.

The point is this;

1. You condemned my FSRC as useless, nonsense, stupid[?] ..
2. You are banking hard on W's language game to support your arguments [where relevant].
3. You seem to think very highly of W as the founder of your favored OLP.
4. I argue W's language is basically a subset of my FSRC.
5. Thus in condemning my FSRC you are also condemning W's language game in which you are relying to support your argument.
6. I accused you of not understanding W's On Certainty's fundamental and main theme.

Note the ? in the OP.
I was inviting views in the OP and hopefully note what others are saying about the topic.
I have given clues to support my point in my OP and later posts but have yet to give sufficient details to justify W language games is a subset of my FSRC.
I will do that soon in a post "Why W language games is Subset of the FSRC".

You haven't shown any signs of an improved understanding. All you've done is claim Wittgenstein agreed with your KFC-bucket theory. It's absurd so there's no reason to pick up and refresh.

If you do post "Why W language games is Subset of the FSRC" you will just be making a fool of yourself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You haven't shown any signs of an improved understanding. All you've done is claim Wittgenstein agreed with your KFC-bucket theory. It's absurd so there's no reason to pick up and refresh.

If you do post "Why W language games is Subset of the FSRC" you will just be making a fool of yourself.

You are just like an ignorant kid calling Copernicus a fool on his Heliocentric claims.

When I do the above, I will ensure it it supported by a valid argument.
I have already given some basis clues on W's mentioned of 'Framework' and System which is implied within his whole On Certainty.

If you reread the whole of On Certainty again, W sparsely mentioned language games but his main theme conditioned upon Kant's challenge via Moore is that;
one [Moore] cannot claim certainty of the external world, or "I know" or to doubt without a specific Framework and System {FS} to condition upon.

"On Certainty" reflect the greater mature thoughts of W within his F&S which could be called 'River_bed-Hinges' FSK where his Language-games is one sub-FSK.

Writers had claimed the previous W writings were in bits and pieces but his latest 'On Certainty' has some kind of theme and unity.

So I suggest you reread "On Certainty" and show me where I am wrong or change your false beliefs re W's On Certainty.