It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 1:36 pm


All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Arthur's Argument Clinic
PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:55 am 

Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:41 am
Posts: 633
Location: Suihua, Heilongjiang Province, China
So I have established an argument clinic here on the Nick Drake forum.

If you wish to have an argument it can be arranged but only after the proper security clearances have been obtained.


The only subjects which have been properly cleared for
argumentation are:

'It is t true that the Wittgensteinian argument against
solipsism is valid' ;

Brummies kick ass outa Wolves; or ,

'The confrontation between Augustinian and Platonc dialectics has been
falsely represented'


I Kindly await your thoughtful response

Earguards,
Arthur.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 10:21 am 

Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 12:48 pm
Posts: 203
Location: United Kingdom
Argument Clinic


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:44 pm 

Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 126
Location: London
Sorry arfur I'm larrfin me 'ead off after watching the link Peter put on here
:lol: I'd forgotten how funny Monty Python was. Perhaps we could have a laughter clinic instead?


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2010 1:26 pm 

Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:41 am
Posts: 633
Location: Suihua, Heilongjiang Province, China
What do you mean .. Monty Python funny?
That was clearly the most abysmal attempt at
humour I've ever witnessed.
How could you possibly think such was funny?


Thank You
That will be 10£ please. (inflation you know)
I accept Paypal.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 5:51 pm 

Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 126
Location: London
£10 :shock: That's daylight robbery!!! Outrageous even...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-oH-TEL ... re=channel

Now you owe me £10 :D


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:18 am 

Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:41 am
Posts: 633
Location: Suihua, Heilongjiang Province, China
Lame, lame, lame .

The penalty for posting lame humour at my clinic is
6,464,674,879,769,786,748,748 £ per hour.

'Commencing at time of such posting of lame material, untill mateial
reprisal of lameness is effected'

(You should have read the fine print, I have it here somewhere.)
Check your inbox,


Therefore, you now owe (ARTHUR) your car, your home, your life, and the
greater part of the galaxy; up into , and including parts of the Van
Allen belt (whatever the hell that is) , and all of the discovered and/or undiscovered moons of Jupiter ( see Subsection 12 (a), paragragh ii): Moon's of Jupiter; possession thereof)


egards,


HRH Prince Philip; Royal Order of the Garter, etc.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:11 am 

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:22 am
Posts: 171
I have been busy.

A technical matter has delayed my looking at Peter's link. I am eager to do so however.

I do actually have a sense of humor. I was joke editor for the junior high newspaper. That's kind of a joke in itself.

But -- um -- I am not entirely like other people and frankly what interests me most is the Wittgensteinian argument against solipsism. I am not sure what it is but might have an idea. bmore you have mentioned W and language matters on previous occasions. If you would care to elaborate this argument against solispsim I would be interested. Is it (1) that W sees solipism as a nonreal problem or (2) he sees it as a real problem but one that cannot be solved by philosophy or language or (3) something else?

When I have time I want to get back to Things Behind The Sun and the interesting call to the Drake residence. Thanks Arthur very much for your recollections of the occasion.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 1:51 am 

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:22 am
Posts: 171
Actually bmore it's good you haven't had a chance to respond yet. Here's my plan. In fact I want to look into W myself and will post my own interpretation of what I think he is saying about solipsism. Then you can comment on whether you agree or not. This approach may save you some trouble and as for me well I consider it... fun. This may take me a few days but I'll be back.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:36 am 

Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:41 am
Posts: 633
Location: Suihua, Heilongjiang Province, China
Well JHT, I've read your last post; just when I was preparing to try and give a rather lengthy response
to some of the issues raised above; and now am not sure how I should proceed, as you've indicated you wish
to investigate W on your own to see what he has to say.

(And I apologize for the lateness of this response: I've just started employment again after having the wonderful
luxury for the last nine months of living on pogey; and thus now have much less free time with which to pester people on this forum)

Perhaps, then, I'll just make a few general comments about W and solipsism; and perhaps give pointers to where I
think valuable information on above may be found.

W's argument against solipsism is oftentimes called the `private language' argument; a very general and simplistic summation of which
is that he claims that language is composed of rules, tacit and explicit, and that a `rule' can never exist except in a social context, in a community.

This argument, though, I think, can only be well appreciated through an understanding Wittgenstein's general philosophy of language.

This is not the W of the Tractatus-- all his later work from Philosophical Investigations onward-- was a critique of the Tractatus.

One's ability to think and reflect is bounded by ones language.But one's language is recieved, acquired, so even in ones reflection on
language one is in a sort of a catch 22 in that in reflecting on language, one is bounded by language. Sort of like the problem of looking at ones own eye.


A text which I found a good intro to the latter Wittgenstein's treatment of these issues was `Mind and Matter' by Ilham Dilman, who was a prof
at Swansea, (now dead, I think). It was reading this, prob 25 years ago that opened up for me the depth of the issue of language in philosophy.
This book deals with the existence of an external world and the problem of solipsism, from a Wittgensteinian perspective.

Regards, Arthur.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 3:32 am 

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:22 am
Posts: 171
Arthur there is something else I need to say. My last post above is flawed to me it almost comes across like I'm making it an argument or contest or something. This is not the case. This is another of those occasions where I needed to be more careful before writing. I don't always have the nuance or subtlety of expression called for. I make mistakes. So anyway it is not a contest or argument. It is a matter of us seeing what can learned and understood of something as a cooperative venture for the interest of each of us. And it sounds like we're both busy but I'll be working on it some. I can't promise profound results for my own part but I will work on it. Till later.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 1:01 am 

Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:41 am
Posts: 633
Location: Suihua, Heilongjiang Province, China
Don't you worry. Never interpreted it that way. All's well,


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 4:31 pm 

Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 126
Location: London
But I thought this was an argument clinic......... :roll:


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:14 pm 

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:22 am
Posts: 171
Well toffina1 -- to make a reflexive verb out of "win" -- I'd say you just won yourself an argument. It's good someone is keeping an eye on things.

I have ordered the book by Ilham Dilman recommended by Arthur.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 3:26 pm 

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:54 pm
Posts: 42
Location: Glasgow
.
Quote:
Brummies kick ass outa Wolves


Hmmm, I guess you'd have to agree with that for the time being,

I like Mick McCarthy, he's an ex Celtic player and calls it as he sees it. No doubt Brum are the better team for the time being, but McLeish's time at Rangers ended with them in disarray (what a happy time that was! :lol: ) and history may well repeat itself.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:47 pm 

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:22 am
Posts: 171
After having spent a certain time looking into it here is my long delayed and anticlimactic post about Wittgenstein and solipsism. I did not read Wittgenstein's Tractatus or Philosophical Investigations themselves using instead in the interest of efficiency and facility only a couple review articles.

Yes here I am engaged and in my element.

Like Nick Drake in that photo at Marlborough.

This is too long to be of any interest but I did the best I could in a reasonable time.

My current basic position is that the more I read of Wittgenstein the more it seems he made no progress with solipsism or anything. Of course one would expect me to say this. And of course I might come to understand in the future that I am in error. It has happened before.

What I consider most important is at the end after the second row of asterisks. This next long part one can just ignore.

* * *

I ordered Ilham Dilman’s book Matter and Mind based on Wittgenstein's ideas but this book is too difficult for me to understand. I believe Dilman is trying to show that an independent material domain does exist – which I currently consider cannot be convincingly known because of the problem of solipsism which indeed is the issue -- but the book unfortunately is too difficult for me to understand. I don’t want to sell Ilham Dilman short however and sometime will have to try again to see if I can understand what he is saying. And maybe Wittgenstein as well.

But yes Wittgenstein to me seems to have made no progress with solipsism or even language.

Wittgenstein has this Beetle in the Box example where each one has a beetle in a box and each one may see what is in one's box but may not see what is in anyone else's box. He uses this apparently to try to show words cannot get their meaning from personal experiences but rather from use in language among persons with which position I do not agree see below. Does the Beetle in the Box example have anything to do with solipsism? It seems to me to be a facsimile of solipsism wherein one experiences only one's own experiences and not those of any other being. As such it does not resolve solipsism as an issue and in fact I suggest represents an acknowledgment of the problem.

(This does not relate so much to solipsism but It is said the beetle "drops out of consideration" as far as what the word "beetle" means in interpersonal language and Wittgenstein argued apparently that words cannot get their meaning according to what one actually experiences as when one looks in one's beetle box. I agree that the word name given to a particular repetitive experience bears no necessary relation to the experience itself. One can call a given experience by whatever name one wants. All that matters for purposes of communication is that one use the same name regularly in connection with the same experience. But I do not agree with Wittgenstein's apparent idea that the specific nature of the experience does not matter at all as regards repetitive use of the name. It seems to me obvious it does matter to the person who has the experience. Wittgenstein tries to undermine this matter of personal experience also by raising the issue of how one knows a current experience is the same as a previous experience one recollects as being the same. How does one know the beetle one sees in the box now is or is not the same as the beetle one saw yesterday? He argues that recollection is not a sufficient criterion of determination. I agree that there is no criterion independent of recollection however I do not subscribe to the view that recollection itself for matters of intents and purposes is necessarily invalid or not of any utility or meaning as regards what one calls truth. Memory is after all an essential basis of integrity of our interaction with reality. It is true I do not know for sure if the universe of today is the same as the universe of yesterday however this does not exclude the possibility that they are the same AND if for all intents and purposes they are the same then that matters on a substantial level. I believe there is a great deal of value in the for-all-intents-and--purposes approach I believe it is the best we have available in general.)

Wittgenstein also says and this does relate to solipsism that one cannot say anything about what is beyond one's experiences. There is this statement “Metaphysics ethics aesthetics try to capture the world as a whole and are excluded as is the truth in solipsism because the subject is not ‘in’ the world but at its limit”. I believe what he is trying to say here is that one cannot get outside of one’s experiences to have any means of comparing experience to anything else or placing it in any context. Or as is said “A picture cannot picture its own pictorial form” or as bmore said “One cannot see into one’s own eye”. However I disagree here too with how Wittgenstein deals with solipsism. Saying the truth of solipsism is excluded because the subject is not in the world but at its limit it seems to me is not to discredit solipsism but merely to reassert its reality. To say the subject is at the limit and not beyond IS the issue of solipsism again. Wittgenstein again as in the Beetle in the Box example seems to say nothing new about solipsism but rather simply seems to recapitulate the issue thus in fact acknowledging the problem. Furthermore if the truth in solipsism is excluded because the subject is at the limit then the truth in the totality of one’s experiences likewise is excluded because the totality of one’s own experiences also extends obviously to the limit of what one knows and experiences. I mean one cannot say one’s experiences unlike solipsism are validated because there are experiences beyond one’s experiences. That makes no sense. Both solipsism and the totality of one’s experiences go to the limit and both either are validated or invalidated. So Wittgenstein’s dismissal of solipsism in the way he maintains here appears to generate a reduction ad absurdum situation casting yet more doubt on his assertions about solipsism.

* * *

I also want to cite here now what I believe are several important aspects to solipsism. They are somewhat redundant as I state them here because all relate to the same underlying solipsism problem:

-- All one ever experiences is one's own experiences. Therefore one can never be sure one is not the only entity existing in the universe. One might or might not be.

-- All one ever experiences is one's own experiences. Therefore one can never be sure anything exists independently of one’s experiences. It might or it might not. One cannot be sure an independent material domain exists. Nick Drake and his music might somehow all be creations of my own being.

-- All one ever experiences is one's own experiences. Therefore one can never be sure anything exists independently of one’s experiences. But there might exist things independently of one’s experiences. Nick Drake might have existed and his music might exist independently of my experiences. But there are also other possibilities. Among others one cannot be sure of the nonreality of the Brain in a Vat situation. Therefore also one cannot be certain of the true or full nature of reality.

-- All one ever experiences is one's own experiences. Therefore one cannot specify the boundary between mind and matter.

-- The solipsism problem MEANS that nothing objective can be known. Everything is subjective. This I assert is something everyone needs to know with failure to understand being a matter of grave peril. Because one will be deluded into thinking various things are matters of absolute truth when in fact such cannot be known. The ultimate truth is not known. Everything is rhetorical. Existence is Machiavellian and you’d better understand that. (But why am I sharing this knowledge?) Whatever passes as truth is a function merely of who comes across as the most convincing at the moment. Any more certain truth remains beyond accessibility because of solipsism.


Last edited by JHT on Wed Nov 03, 2010 2:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Moderator: Matt (admin) Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Theme created StylerBB.net