Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Faboba)
    I... uh... demand to have... Kierkegaard's face adorn my name. In return I'm willing to help (or, as is more likely, hinder) any of the cambridge freshers with logic next year, if you catch me on a good day.
    If I catch you on many consecutive days (read: stalk you :p: ) then I'm bound to get lucky on that at least once, right?

    You need to apply through 'usercp / group memberships' and then I can approve your request for a logo...but you also have to post here sometimes coz I take it away from logo-whores :rolleyes:

    I forget which college you're at...?

    ZarathustraX
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarathustra)
    but you also have to post here sometimes coz I take it away from logo-whores :rolleyes:

    ZarathustraX
    Is that why I don't have a logo? I wondered why....mmm
    *reminds self to post more often*. Maybe I'll write up that wacky theory with a million holes in it one day...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reema)
    Is that why I don't have a logo? I wondered why....mmm
    *reminds self to post more often*. Maybe I'll write up that wacky theory with a million holes in it one day...
    Oh, have you applied? Sorry I haven't gone through approvals for a while - will do tonight or tomorrow. That's certainly not why you don't have one; I give people the benefit of the doubt and approve them (and with you I know you're a philosopher anyway!!)...it just gets annoying when people apply for the logos of about 50 societies and don't post in any of them, so I'm sometimes on the lookout for totally inactive members that I can demote :p:

    ZarathustraX
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    *Bounces around actively*
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Lol does bouncing count as being active then? I guess it does :p:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarathustra)
    Oh, have you applied? Sorry I haven't gone through approvals for a while - will do tonight or tomorrow. That's certainly not why you don't have one; I give people the benefit of the doubt and approve them (and with you I know you're a philosopher anyway!!)...it just gets annoying when people apply for the logos of about 50 societies and don't post in any of them, so I'm sometimes on the lookout for totally inactive members that I can demote :p:

    ZarathustraX
    Ohh I see what you mean about the million logos - I started feeling a tad bit guilty just then. Yes I had applied a while back...mmm maybe I should reapply? I checked, my settings are to show logos.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reema)
    Ohh I see what you mean about the million logos - I started feeling a tad bit guilty just then. Yes I had applied a while back...mmm maybe I should reapply? I checked, my settings are to show logos.
    No need to reapply I've done it now - my apologies for not having kept up to date with the membership requests this last week.

    crazydaveuk and tigertrap87 have also both been added!

    ZarathustraX
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yippee - thanks Zarathusthra . I assure you, I will post more now anyway, lol...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Faboba)
    Pfff. And in saying so he runs into the exact same problem as the epiphenomenalists; a private language which no one else could even in theory understand, is one which I shouldn't be able to understand.
    ...but... but... well you can't! I mean, they are impossible. That's his point!



    Right. With all these clever people in one place we must be able to talk about something good that isn't a Wittgenstein Discussion started by me! Someone? Anyone?

    *One shakey hand strays towards a book by Satre* ...please!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calvin)
    ...but... but... well you can't! I mean, they are impossible. That's his point!
    What's the point in talking about it then in the first place? I mean, his theory itself may as well be a private language game - but then in this sense I am contradicting the whole criticism myself by saying it's a private language game...

    *head hurts*.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    He's showing language is essentially (dammit I'm talking about it again!) public. That it isn't about some thing in your head you think about. But rather something in your actions you demonstrate. You learn a word not by learning what it means, not by learning the rule, but by seeing how it's used. Thus you need a public environment because language learning is empiracal not rational. I need to see (though of course I don't need to be able to actually 'see' I could use other sense to get the requisite information) other people use the word. So thus language must necessarily be a public thing.

    As for "language games" that's a different issue. Thats about (I think) using certain words in special ways in different contexts. Like science has it's own laguage games because what we might call a cat they might call 'a member of the flupple zwoodle family' or some other daft sciency thing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Oh god I got confused. Well, that's what I get for entering a discussion without reading the previous posts on it :confused:.

    But surely isn't the public use of language linked to language-games? As in, we learn about language through its use within a certain language-game?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calvin)
    ...but... but... well you can't! I mean, they are impossible. That's his point!



    Right. With all these clever people in one place we must be able to talk about something good that isn't a Wittgenstein Discussion started by me! Someone? Anyone?

    *One shakey hand strays towards a book by Satre* ...please!
    Free will and determinism? The inexplicable Godless existence of man? Existential angst? *Runs up against limit of Sartre knowledge*

    How about this - what is truth? Thats a fairly standard one.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    It's also possibly a little large a topic to be dealt with all in one go. :P
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Coherentism! Woohoo!
    Truth is fitting in with your other beliefs
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Thats clearly not good enough. It means two contradictory statements can both be true.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Well, they can't both be true for me, obviously because they wouldn't fit in with each other.

    As for one might be true for you and one might be true for me. The idea goes that truth-for-me is compeltely different to true-for-you. So P might be True1 for me whilst not-P would be True2 for you so we never get a direct contradiction.

    Philosophy: :rofl:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    But doesn't that make all disagreement impossible?

    A: The sky is blue!

    B: No, it isn't!

    A: It is coherent with MY beliefs.

    B: It isn't coherent with MINE.

    A: But those are two different matters. It's A-True that the sky is blue, but B-False.

    B: Oh, that's alright, then; I guess we didn't disagree after all.

    Hence there can never be disagreements.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cantabrian)
    But doesn't that make all disagreement impossible?

    A: The sky is blue!

    B: No, it isn't!

    A: It is coherent with MY beliefs.

    B: It isn't coherent with MINE.

    A: But those are two different matters. It's A-True that the sky is blue, but B-False.

    B: Oh, that's alright, then; I guess we didn't disagree after all.

    Hence there can never be disagreements.

    Hmmm... coherent-for-you is different to coherent-for-me perhaps?

    I think the real coherentist answer would be that there is disagreement. My answer is the right one whilst yours is wrong in every way that is important to me. It isn't a case of accepting that in some sense we are both right, because your answer couldn't be more wrong, it directly contradicts the truth.
    Don't think of my set of beliefs as just being things like "the sky is blue" that stand alone and we could agree on everything but just disagree about that. If you don't think the sky is blue to the extent that that really is the most coherent possible statement fo ryour system then your system and mine are most likely radically different. And our systems contain all our beliefs, right down to the most fundamental, things like "I exist" and "Change takes place" so its not necessarily a trivial thing for us to have differing belief sets.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calvin)
    ...
    *One shakey hand strays towards a book by Satre* ...please!
    Sartre you mean? Being and Nothingness, what a great read.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: September 14, 2010
Poll
Are you going to a festival?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.