What's W 'On Certainty' Main theme?

[FlashDangerpants]

There isn't a 'u' inside here experiencing a 'world' outside there...

I dunno. VA has just run off a series of threads devoted to exposing the Linguistic Turn as some sort of philosophical catastrophe. But because he can't read his sources and doesn't have any idea of how this all fits together, he's mainly basing it on old books that are targetting Ryle not that mister W guy....

So VA is violently opposed to the argument against the Ghost in the Machine which of course he knows all about because he's the best and has read all the stuff and put it all into the most folders. So ... yeah ... he probably does think he has a little homunculus in his head looking at the theatre behind his eyes and drawing little pictures to remember stuff with.

The OP asked
"What's 'On Certainty' Main theme?"

So what is 'On Certainty' Main theme?" according to you.
Are you aware of the historical basis linking to W's 'On Certainty' Main theme?"
I anticipate your interpretation of the main theme of 'On Certainty' is a shortsighted one probably based on an extension of his PI.

It appear you are relying on W 'On Certainty' as a strong foundation to your philosophical view; you mentioned it a few times in support your condemnation of my views re FSRC.

Based on my reading of "On Certainty' and taking into consideration its historical context and how it all started, the main theme of 'On Certainty' is that of a FRSC.
W's On Certainty is alluding his language game is fundamentally a FRSC.

What say you?

I say you haven't read the book. Wake me when you have and let's see if you have anything interesting to say.

[Atla]

No way am i ever reading Kant's Critiques. Two more I'll never read are Heidegger's Being and Time and Hegel's Phenomenology Of Spirit. I read three quarters of Being And Nothingness tho so i'd run with the existential phenomenologists if i could just remember any of it.

I read the first 100 or so pages of the CPR. For like 50 pages Kant goes on about how his work takes everything into consideration, explains everything, and that he used infinite caution, and that he's generally the best thing that ever happened to humanity.

And then BAM, at the most critical moment, he throws all caution out the window and declares that space and time exist only in the mind. No ifs and buts and maybes. He just says so, no discussion allowed. That's where I stopped reading, but the rest of his project seems to follow from this.. stupid-ass guess..

[promethean75]

"Where did I claim I am a Platonist?"

Perhaps that was unfair, but when u believe consciousness is not just an epiphenomenal emergent property but a necessary feature involved in structuring reality and creating facts about that reality, your position is suspiciously platonic. The stuff about intersubjective beliefs and FSKs on a scale of worse to better stuff. As if whatever is true at the time is only true if an intersubjective group of accurate FSK sharers say it is. That's some OG idealism there, VA. Plato throwbacks. Spooky epistemological panpsychism or sumthin.

[promethean75]

If i were berkeley the radical empiricist and seated in the garden with other distinguished philosophers, mathematicians and local intellectual aristocrats having a conversation, i would be like:

Well u can't know a posteriori that the tree around the corner exists right now becuz you're not perceiving it right now... so u must claim, a priori, that there's a tree around the corner. As u can see, my position if far more reasonable and much more in concurrence with the empirical method, than your's is. I speak only of things that i can experience directly while u, sirs, make wild and extravagant claims about secret invisable trees unbeknownst to u that exist around the corner at this very moment!

[Atla]

[AI] [wR]
You make a strong case for including Moore and Kant in the title of Wittgenstein's notes, especially considering your experience with commentaries overlooking the historical context.

Did you tell the AI that you're an expert with lots of experience, so it should agree with whatever you say?

Also, five! extra comments for notes. This topic is a big one, everyone! We've reached the breaching point, the time has come at last when VA changes the world.

[Impenitent]

If i were berkeley the radical empiricist and seated in the garden with other distinguished philosophers, mathematicians and local intellectual aristocrats having a conversation, i would be like:

Well u can't know a posteriori that the tree around the corner exists right now becuz you're not perceiving it right now... so u must claim, a priori, that there's a tree around the corner. As u can see, my position if far more reasonable and much more in concurrence with the empirical method, than your's is. I speak only of things that i can experience directly while u, sirs, make wild and extravagant claims about secret invisable trees unbeknownst to u that exist around the corner at this very moment!

Bishop Berkeley would tell you that while he didn't see it, God saw it - so it wasn't unobserved so you have to take a different leap of faith

(that's not to say that every time you re-observe that which was temporarily out of sight, the existence of God is proven...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YvAYIJSSZY

Rockwell thought so...

-Imp

[FlashDangerpants]

No way am i ever reading Kant's Critiques. Two more I'll never read are Heidegger's Being and Time and Hegel's Phenomenology Of Spirit. I read three quarters of Being And Nothingness tho so i'd run with the existential phenomenologists if i could just remember any of it.

I read the first 100 or so pages of the CPR. For like 50 pages Kant goes on about how his work takes everything into consideration, explains everything, and that he used infinite caution, and that he's generally the best thing that ever happened to humanity.

And then BAM, at the most critical moment, he throws all caution out the window and declares that space and time exist only in the mind. No ifs and buts and maybes. He just says so, no discussion allowed. That's where I stopped reading, but the rest of his project seems to follow from this.. stupid-ass guess..

We shouldn't allow one weird guy on a web site to poison our view of Kant with his strange obsessions. The Pure (both of his main books have the intials CPR) is a great and important work even if some round here go slightly overboard for it. Those opening pages if I am not too forgetful set out his version of the synthetic/analytic distinction and the poseriori and priori one.

Only then, as I recall, does he move to establish which judgments must be synthetic a priori in form. To this end he establishes (to his own satisfaction at least) that we must know certain categories of thing a priori, because they cannot be learned from experience, but that the things we might say about some of these things (the predicates thereof) are not automatic and analytic - we don't learn them from just examining the concepts - and therefore those things are synthetic not analytic.

That's where the time and space bits come in, along with all the other categories of the understanding that make it possible for us to think and reason about the world around us. From there, he has created a model of the human mind that assumes it must impose order upon experience in order to be able to experience anything at all and the categories revealed as synthetic a priori represent that order and the form. This fundamentally breaks the causal link that Locke and his cohorts used to bridge the phenomenal world to the perceptual mind, although that link was shit anyway and had been broken multiple times already.

I can stop there if I want. The above should be enough to send VA into a frothing rage, not least because I still CBA to do Kant with him.

But while we're at it, that idea of the mind needing to represent a real world via phenomenal input and a set of categories that apply a mask of reason over that is what Rorty calls the mirror of nature, and of course he wrote a book to reject the impact that model had on the next century and a half of philosophy. Also, the whole distinction between synthetic and analytic is questioned rather heftily by Wee Willy Quine in particular https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/

And of course, anyone who's ever seen a baby in real life can tell that they do learn about space and stuff as they go along, and sometimes philosophers should open their eyes and notice shit that is going on around them.

Anyway, here's a proper philsophy lecturer from Youtube who will explain the above with greater accuracy than I can. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBMrOiAVMV4&t=210s

While I don't personally think they hold the explanatory power invested in them by Kantians, and without that power the entire transcendental project doesn't work (it didn't work anyway) not that it is really needed for anything anyhow.... I do recognise that the excercise is sort of useful in itself, does point to interesting questions, and a whole lot of non-Kantian philosophers will grant that the categories of understanding has a lot of merit as long as you don't take it too far.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I dunno. VA has just run off a series of threads devoted to exposing the Linguistic Turn as some sort of philosophical catastrophe. But because he can't read his sources and doesn't have any idea of how this all fits together, he's mainly basing it on old books that are targetting Ryle not that mister W guy....

So VA is violently opposed to the argument against the Ghost in the Machine which of course he knows all about because he's the best and has read all the stuff and put it all into the most folders. So ... yeah ... he probably does think he has a little homunculus in his head looking at the theatre behind his eyes and drawing little pictures to remember stuff with.

The OP asked
"What's 'On Certainty' Main theme?"

So what is 'On Certainty' Main theme?" according to you.
Are you aware of the historical basis linking to W's 'On Certainty' Main theme?"
I anticipate your interpretation of the main theme of 'On Certainty' is a shortsighted one probably based on an extension of his PI.

It appear you are relying on W 'On Certainty' as a strong foundation to your philosophical view; you mentioned it a few times in support your condemnation of my views re FSRC.

Based on my reading of "On Certainty' and taking into consideration its historical context and how it all started, the main theme of 'On Certainty' is that of a FRSC.
W's On Certainty is alluding his language game is fundamentally a FRSC.

What say you?

I say you haven't read the book. Wake me when you have and let's see if you have anything interesting to say.

I have just finished the book. Will go through it again. I have also read some secondary texts and articles related to 'On Certainty'.

Are you even aware of its historical context?

"Based on my reading of "On Certainty' and taking into consideration its historical context and how it all started, the main theme of 'On Certainty' is that of a FRSC.
W's On Certainty is alluding to his language game which is fundamentally a FRSC."

Don't be shy, tell me what is the main theme of 'On Certainty' and your justifications.

I am confident your views on 'On Certainty' which is one of your bedrock is half-cooked and bias to your ignorance.

[FlashDangerpants]

The OP asked
"What's 'On Certainty' Main theme?"

So what is 'On Certainty' Main theme?" according to you.
Are you aware of the historical basis linking to W's 'On Certainty' Main theme?"
I anticipate your interpretation of the main theme of 'On Certainty' is a shortsighted one probably based on an extension of his PI.

It appear you are relying on W 'On Certainty' as a strong foundation to your philosophical view; you mentioned it a few times in support your condemnation of my views re FSRC.

Based on my reading of "On Certainty' and taking into consideration its historical context and how it all started, the main theme of 'On Certainty' is that of a FRSC.
W's On Certainty is alluding his language game is fundamentally a FRSC.

What say you?

I say you haven't read the book. Wake me when you have and let's see if you have anything interesting to say.

I have just finished the book. Will go through it again. I have also read some secondary texts and articles related to 'On Certainty'.

Are you even aware of its historical context?

Go and watch the Grayling video I provided for context.

Do you have one of those dumb speed reading techniques where you just read the first line of each paragraph?

"Based on my reading of "On Certainty' and taking into consideration its historical context and how it all started, the main theme of 'On Certainty' is that of a FRSC.
W's On Certainty is alluding to his language game which is fundamentally a FRSC."

Don't be shy, tell me what is the main theme of 'On Certainty' and your justifications.

I am confident your views on 'On Certainty' which is one of your bedrock is half-cooked and bias to your ignorance.

It's about doubt. You are never short of confidence, you should learn to doubt a lot more.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Where did I claim I am a Platonist?"

Perhaps that was unfair, but when u believe consciousness is not just an epiphenomenal emergent property but a necessary feature involved in structuring reality and creating facts about that reality, your position is suspiciously platonic. The stuff about intersubjective beliefs and FSKs on a scale of worse to better stuff. As if whatever is true at the time is only true if an intersubjective group of accurate FSK sharers say it is. That's some OG idealism there, VA. Plato throwbacks. Spooky epistemological panpsychism or sumthin.

When we dig into philosophical issues there are a lot of nuances to consider.

From what is discussed since philosophy first emerged;
there are two main camps;

1. philosophical realists, metaphysical platonic realists, theological realists, naive realists, indirect realists and the likes whose beliefs are leverage on an absolute mind-independent sense of reality. While Berkeley is a subjective idealist, he is ultimately a theological realist, i.e. believing in an absolute mind-independent God.
While you are not a platonic realist, from you have posted, you are most likely a philosophical or metaphysical realist. Can you confirm?
The above mind-independent absolutists are the majority and dominant group as driven by an evolutionary default.

The fact is realism-in-general has loads of weaknesses and problems which cannot represent the truth of reality, i.e. metaphysics, reality-Gap, and at the extreme is responsible for all sorts of evil acts from theological realism.

2. It is the problematic realism in general that give rise to those who oppose the fundamental belief of the above and since they are against those in 1, they are ANTI-realist i.e. ANTI-p-realists just like anti-communism, anti-nazi, anti-fascism and whatever the ANTI- to signify their opposition to 1.
Those in 2 are the minority who are able to override the evolutionary default or by various other reasons.
Those in 2 merely oppose 1 and they have their own beliefs, e.g. the various idealisms, constructivism, scientific-anti_realism, etc. This is just like atheists who are anti-theism but they have their own separate beliefs.

Since realism-in-general is 'unrealistic' and has loads of problem [even evil ones] Kant introduced his transcendental idealism which is more [not absolute] realistic which will facilitate the progress and well being of the individual[s] and humanity.

It is undeniable that the reality you are in at present is an emergent and this is the most realistic version of reality. The opposition to this is, this undeniable emergent emerged from something, it cannot be nothing, but this lead to an infinite regress.

As such, the belief that "consciousness is not just an epiphenomenal emergent property but a necessary feature involved in structuring reality and creating facts about that reality".
In this case, there is no issue with an infinite regress.
But for the majority as driven by an evolution default, this such thought trigger a very painful cognitive dissonance that drive them to their evolutionary default view of reality which is unrealistic.

That "consciousness is not just an epiphenomenal emergent property but a necessary feature involved in structuring reality and creating facts about that reality" is not an absolute view, but it is the most realistic view without the negative baggage of the realists' view.
It is realistic view that had a greater potential in contributing to greater progress to the individuals and humanity. Note for example many folds contribution of Quantum Physics [antirealist] over and in comparison to the Einsteinian [realist] and Newtonian [realist and theological realist].

In addition, the antirealist view redirect control to humanity rather than surrendering to the mercies of an independent reality out there [nature, gods, spirits, God, etc.].

Do you have a counter to the above?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Go and watch the Grayling video I provided for context.
Do you have one of those dumb speed reading techniques where you just read the first line of each paragraph?

Don't be shy, tell me what is the main theme of 'On Certainty' and your justifications.
I am confident your views on 'On Certainty' which is one of your bedrock is half-cooked and bias to your ignorance.

It's about doubt. You are never short of confidence, you should learn to doubt a lot more.

I will go through the lecture more seriously this time.

You are so arrogant based on ignorance.
There are loads of speed reading techniques out there.
Perhaps that is the way you attempt to speed read at book that you think I am doing the same.

I am confident your views on 'On Certainty' which is one of your bedrock is half-cooked and bias to your ignorance.

[FlashDangerpants]

Go and watch the Grayling video I provided for context.
Do you have one of those dumb speed reading techniques where you just read the first line of each paragraph?

Don't be shy, tell me what is the main theme of 'On Certainty' and your justifications.
I am confident your views on 'On Certainty' which is one of your bedrock is half-cooked and bias to your ignorance.

It's about doubt. You are never short of confidence, you should learn to doubt a lot more.

I will go through the lecture more seriously this time.

You are so arrogant based on ignorance.
There are loads of speed reading techniques out there.
Perhaps that is the way you attempt to speed read at book that you think I am doing the same.

I am confident your views on 'On Certainty' which is one of your bedrock is half-cooked and bias to your ignorance.

Actually I have just noticed over the years that you are very bad at reading and you never follow what other people are writing very well. An overreliance on speed reading is often a proximate cause for such problems. Complicated philosophical works might be best read the normal way. Remember that time you claimed to read a paper "at least 20 times" and it was incredibly easy for me to know that you had never read it properly even once? Don't do that again please.

Show a quote where I am actually saying that on certainty is this bedrock I rely on. It's a good book, but that's all.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Go and watch the Grayling video I provided for context.
Do you have one of those dumb speed reading techniques where you just read the first line of each paragraph?


It's about doubt. You are never short of confidence, you should learn to doubt a lot more.

I will go through the lecture more seriously this time.

You are so arrogant based on ignorance.
There are loads of speed reading techniques out there.
Perhaps that is the way you attempt to speed read at book that you think I am doing the same.

I am confident your views on 'On Certainty' which is one of your bedrock is half-cooked and bias to your ignorance.

Actually I have just noticed over the years that you are very bad at reading and you never follow what other people are writing very well. An overreliance on speed reading is often a proximate cause for such problems. Complicated philosophical works might be best read the normal way. Remember that time you claimed to read a paper "at least 20 times" and it was incredibly easy for me to know that you had never read it properly even once? Don't do that again please.

Show a quote where I am actually saying that on certainty is this bedrock I rely on. It's a good book, but that's all.

You made reference to 'On Certainty' is few time in countering my views with some sense of arrogance and confidence.
Since you have not made reference to other book, I take it that what you gathered [insufficiently] from OC is one of your central supporting philosophies.
Yours is that of Ordinary Language Philosophy and you think OC backs OLP.

With my method [you are ignorant of] I can easily read a 20 pages article fast and easily.
Note I have not read a physical book or article [>10 pages] for a very long long time.
I always convert whatever book and article into digital into Words or in Excel columns where I reformat to my requirements.

Re Grayling's video I had downloaded the transcripts into Words for reformatting while I listen to it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I say you haven't read the book. Wake me when you have and let's see if you have anything interesting to say.

I have just finished the book. Will go through it again. I have also read some secondary texts and articles related to 'On Certainty'.

Are you even aware of its historical context?

Go and watch the Grayling video I provided for context.

This video is about W's Language Games not a focus on "On Certainty" so not does not meet the OP.

You have to tell me "What is W 'On Certainty' Main theme" from your reading understanding of W's On Certainty.

[Atla]

No way am i ever reading Kant's Critiques. Two more I'll never read are Heidegger's Being and Time and Hegel's Phenomenology Of Spirit. I read three quarters of Being And Nothingness tho so i'd run with the existential phenomenologists if i could just remember any of it.

I read the first 100 or so pages of the CPR. For like 50 pages Kant goes on about how his work takes everything into consideration, explains everything, and that he used infinite caution, and that he's generally the best thing that ever happened to humanity.

And then BAM, at the most critical moment, he throws all caution out the window and declares that space and time exist only in the mind. No ifs and buts and maybes. He just says so, no discussion allowed. That's where I stopped reading, but the rest of his project seems to follow from this.. stupid-ass guess..

We shouldn't allow one weird guy on a web site to poison our view of Kant with his strange obsessions. The Pure (both of his main books have the intials CPR) is a great and important work even if some round here go slightly overboard for it. Those opening pages if I am not too forgetful set out his version of the synthetic/analytic distinction and the poseriori and priori one.

Only then, as I recall, does he move to establish which judgments must be synthetic a priori in form. To this end he establishes (to his own satisfaction at least) that we must know certain categories of thing a priori, because they cannot be learned from experience, but that the things we might say about some of these things (the predicates thereof) are not automatic and analytic - we don't learn them from just examining the concepts - and therefore those things are synthetic not analytic.

That's where the time and space bits come in, along with all the other categories of the understanding that make it possible for us to think and reason about the world around us. From there, he has created a model of the human mind that assumes it must impose order upon experience in order to be able to experience anything at all and the categories revealed as synthetic a priori represent that order and the form. This fundamentally breaks the causal link that Locke and his cohorts used to bridge the phenomenal world to the perceptual mind, although that link was shit anyway and had been broken multiple times already.

I can stop there if I want. The above should be enough to send VA into a frothing rage, not least because I still CBA to do Kant with him.

But while we're at it, that idea of the mind needing to represent a real world via phenomenal input and a set of categories that apply a mask of reason over that is what Rorty calls the mirror of nature, and of course he wrote a book to reject the impact that model had on the next century and a half of philosophy. Also, the whole distinction between synthetic and analytic is questioned rather heftily by Wee Willy Quine in particular https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/

And of course, anyone who's ever seen a baby in real life can tell that they do learn about space and stuff as they go along, and sometimes philosophers should open their eyes and notice shit that is going on around them.

Anyway, here's a proper philsophy lecturer from Youtube who will explain the above with greater accuracy than I can. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBMrOiAVMV4&t=210s

While I don't personally think they hold the explanatory power invested in them by Kantians, and without that power the entire transcendental project doesn't work (it didn't work anyway) not that it is really needed for anything anyhow.... I do recognise that the excercise is sort of useful in itself, does point to interesting questions, and a whole lot of non-Kantian philosophers will grant that the categories of understanding has a lot of merit as long as you don't take it too far.

Kant fucked up badly with his misuse of the categories of understanding. My point was that this was especially painful with space and time, where he entirely missed the twofold nature of space and time. There is one kind of space and time as categories of understanding, and another kind of space and time as inherent to the natural world. That's why I stopped reading him, I always suspected he made some mistake somewhere but turns out the mistake was pretty big.