VazScep wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

VazScep wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:I don't understand this move against the analytic. Could you explain?

The most classic piece of philosophical analysis is the idea that knowledge is true, justified belief. This isn't how most people use the word "know", but you will find that philosophers will insist that this is the concept (the underlying concept?). That is, until you start talking about Gettier counterexamples, which show that this analysis of knowledge is wrong. That is, until you start doing empirical surveys of people's responses to Gettier cases, and start getting the impression that whether people think it is right or wrong might vary depending on which continent you grew up on.

To put it glibly, analytic philosophy is what you get when you take language --- that system of mouth noises humans hurl at each other --- way too seriously, and continental is what you get when you take language as something that should be constantly undermined. I'm decidedly in the latter camp.

Interesting. I would of thought this was the other way round. When you analyze some meaning it falls to pieces infinitely, hence is not to be taken too seriously. So the analytic undermines.

If you say so. I only go by what professed analytic philosophers say.

I use David Chalmers' writings on the two dimensionality of conceivability as my goto for analytic philosophy at its worst. The more that meaning fractures in Chalmers' analysis, the more he doubles down thinking he's getting closer to bedrock.

I have a couple books on Chalmers and his 2D bit. All looks like cool math but I fail to see how Chalmers is getting to his crazy conclusion with it. A bit contrived.

I like to think I am analytic in looking at arguments and what I normally mean to show is that the premises of the arguments fail as the words and concepts used get smashed to bits. As soon as someone says 'consciousness' or 'mind' I start hammering. Most often the argument falls apart just as the first syllable passes the lip.

edit: someone actually did write a whole book on 2d conceivability. And I bought the damn thing.

Spinozasgalt wrote:

VazScep wrote:To put it glibly, analytic philosophy is what you get when you take language --- that system of mouth noises humans hurl at each other --- way too seriously, and continental is what you get when you take language as something that should be constantly undermined. I'm decidedly in the latter camp.

I dunno. Derrida's deadly serious about being read properly. He was like a broken recorder.

Oh really? That's most welcoming as I am gonna find one of those cocktail parties and there I am gonna destroy Derrida. When everyone will be on their knees, I am gonna throw some Kafka on them. Who's your daddy now? You are you are .. not so fast, schoolgirls :)

Indeed, see you in my 10k celebration thread hon :)

Dont call me hon! ok sure np

Take it this way, I also am confused when observing other humans, so what? Its my problem.

What are schoolgirls doing at a cocktail party? I don't think this is above board. I think it's quite below board. The board is floating on the ocean and this is 2 miles down below.

Same thing I do, looking for mating opportunities :) What else are cocktail parties for?

tuco wrote:Same thing I do, looking for mating opportunities What else are cocktail parties for?

At a cocktail party, someone's just bound to have a bottle opener or corkscrew.

You'd think, eh? Pretty shitty cocktail party if there aren't any cocktails. I have one -

A rooster, a chicken, and a guinea pig walk into a bar...

Cito di Pense wrote:

tuco wrote:Same thing I do, looking for mating opportunities :) What else are cocktail parties for?

At a cocktail party, someone's just bound to have a bottle opener or corkscrew.

lol so much interest in corkscrew I got it you all have one, need one, use one etc but it is the last thing on my mind, unless I want to open bottle which happens so rarely that its not worth bothering with ..oh, if you dont bother why do you talk about it? BOOM headshot! lol

I could understand if none of my proximate neighbors had a cork screw I could borrow because I live in Utah. Why do none of your proximate neighbors have a cork screw you can borrow?

They're, like, a quid.

What's the street value of a black market potato where you live, tuco?

You drunk bro?

VazScep wrote:You're taking the piss, right?

No.

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:For example, if you believe that there is life after death and then modify your day-to-day behavior in accordance with that belief, would you say that you are acting upon that belief?

You mean, he starts justifying his behavior by saying that he 'believes' in life-after-death. If you are not worried that he's speaking nonsense in order to 'justify' his behavior, which is really the most worrisome shit he's up to, sure, you can assume he's acting on his belief, if that helps settle your hash for you. To me, it just means he's enough of a dumbass to say that he believes in life-after-death. Just knowing he's that much of a dumbass is worrying enough.

I don't care what people say about their own 'beliefs'. It's not possible to decide what they 'believe'. It's mostly what they say that pisses people off, but some people do go overboard and start killing people, while claiming 'belief'. Why not just take them to task for their actions, including their saying that they are 'acting on their beliefs'. Why take the extra step of actually believing them, because, you know, believing is incredibly stupid to begin with. You can blame belief, but that's just an excuse for not being able to figure out what's really bothering them.

It's hard to tell whether someone has changed his 'belief', and suddenly started modifying his behavior, or whether he just suddenly started changing his behavior for some reason not particularly related to 'belief', perhaps political affiliation, also known as 'team spirit'. That's why 'belief' is a nonsense term used around here mainly to make fun of people for what they say they 'believe'. Some people who say incredibly stupid shit get pissed off at you for saying how incredibly stupid their shit sounds. These folks are overly sensitive. Any excuse will serve a tyrant.

If you really don't understand the distinction, then no, you're probably not taking the piss, and are just playing the same old game of competing to see whose belief system is the 'stronger'. Woo woo, VKTW, and more power to ya.

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:...
What do you mean by "act upon"? For example, if you believe that there is life after death and then modify your day-to-day behavior in accordance with that belief, would you say that you are acting upon that belief?

Tricky stuff. A belief b is some structure blasted into some set of brain cells, in such a way that it will influence your thinking. Now the verbalization of a belief is another structure associated with b. V(b) = "I believe in life after death".

So if I am passing and a semi comes over the hill I run my circumstance through a little process with b and decide not to turn the wheel.

I guess I would call that acting on my belief. Not for long though!

It's disappointing how many people here give the appearance of being incapable of recognizing the difference between

* an actual belief or concept, and the verbiage misapplied by someone who only THINKS they understand and support it;

* the difference between demonstrating that someone MISSPOKE, and that someone MISCONCEIVED;

* the difference between thinking things through in a disciplined manner, and constructing a trick of words to manipulate oneself or others semantically;

* the difference between finding valid issue with an individual philosophy, or collection of them, and concluding that ALL thought or consideration about ones actions and planning of any kind, is to be abjured.

* most of all, the utter failure to recognize that refusing to think things through (i.e. establish a personal philosophy) IS a philosophy.

igorfrankensteen wrote:It's disappointing how many people here give the appearance of being incapable of recognizing the difference between

* an actual belief or concept, and the verbiage misapplied by someone who only THINKS they understand and support it;

* the difference between demonstrating that someone MISSPOKE, and that someone MISCONCEIVED;

* the difference between thinking things through in a disciplined manner, and constructing a trick of words to manipulate oneself or others semantically;

* the difference between finding valid issue with an individual philosophy, or collection of them, and concluding that ALL thought or consideration about ones actions and planning of any kind, is to be abjured.

* most of all, the utter failure to recognize that refusing to think things through (i.e. establish a personal philosophy) IS a philosophy.

Well let's fix that. What do you suggest?

Here:

* an actual belief or concept, and the verbiage misapplied by someone who only THINKS they understand and support it;