clarkgoble Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 Quote He would see that whole quote as a semantic confusion based on the belief that human perceptions CAN be defined and that it matters that they are, That takes us back to asking questions like "Why is there something rather than nothing" or "Can God create a boulder so big he cannot lift it" or "What color is this dress?" as that internet thing, or "If a tree falls in the forest...." Well I think Peirce avoids that problem with his verification principle in the Pragmatic Maxim. (Which for him was a criterion of meaning, not truth as the positivists took it) So he was fine with many questions being meaningless unless we can unpack their cash value by asking how we'd measure the property in question. So for example for "why is there something rather than nothing" he'd point to the questions of how 'something' and 'nothing' are being used. Which is of course an important point as we see in say the Carnap/Heidegger debate over that question. Usually such questions need heavily unpacked and clarified before one can make sense of them. As to whether human perceptions can be defined, I guess that question first requires we clarify what we mean by perceptions. On that ground it ends up self-refuting since to pose the question one can only include characteristics that are in some sense defined. (Although I vaguely remember Wittgenstein may have an idiosyncratic sense to 'define' but it's been too long since I studied him to want to say anything there) Quote There are no "real" colors for example beyond how we interpret the experience in words. I tend to not agree with that even just in science depending upon what you mean by words and whether you need actual present words or merely possible words. This gets us to the point of continuity. If we're speaking of colors in the sense of light waves (rather than whatever happens when they enter our nervous system) then of course the number of colors detectable by our eyes vastly outstrips our words for them despite being able to distinguish them mathematically. Which is just an other way of turning things around and asking you to define your uses I suppose - to the point I think you need to get clear what you mean by define. As I recall Wittgenstein's use is based upon a model of children's learning (which may have been incorrect in details). But I assume you have your own sense likely not quite the same as W's. Put an other way, I think the key issue remains the place of time and possibility in these terms. As I recall you agreed that for both you and Wittgenstein the analysis is always a static analysis whereas for Peirce, Heidegger, and myself it's not.
Ntrw Posted March 4, 2017 Author Posted March 4, 2017 I have to be crystal clear about the OP: The Book of Mormon is historical; Nephi, Mormon and Moroni are real people that I will enjoy meeting, in the next life.
mfbukowski Posted March 4, 2017 Posted March 4, 2017 13 hours ago, Ntrw said: I have to be crystal clear about the OP: The Book of Mormon is historical; Nephi, Mormon and Moroni are real people that I will enjoy meeting, in the next life. I also believe that and nothing can disprove it.
Recommended Posts