What is the Role of Ontology in Epistemic Differences and Entity Connections?

[Mentat]

No I didn't.

There are about seven posts between this one and another (posted by you) that says otherwise.

I. am. not. quantizing.

Respond to my reasoning, please. This childishness has run its course, don't you think?

It's a scientific fact. Speech has a badnwidth of about 4khz. The brain consists of 100,000,000,000 neurons working in parallel. Do the math.

How the hell am I supposed to do the math on how 100,000,000,000 neurons relates to the possible frequencies of human speech? And why is it relevant? Are you implying that, if we could speak in all possible frequencies, we could speak intelligently about our brain states??

 

[Tournesol]

bandwidth in herz ~ baud rate in bits per second.

Assume that 1% of neurons are transmitting at 1bps -- both extremely conservative.

The resulting bandwidth is many orders of magnitude more than speech.

 

[selfAdjoint]

bandwidth in herz ~ baud rate in bits per second.

Assume that 1% of neurons are transmitting at 1bps -- both extremely conservative.

The resulting bandwidth is many orders of magnitude more than speech.

But that bandwidth has many other calls upon it, such as vision, no?

 

[Tournesol]

But that bandwidth has many other calls upon it, such as vision, no?

Quite. The point was that there is more going on (objectively or subjectively) in our heads than we can possibly report on.

 

[Mentat]

Quite. The point was that there is more going on (objectively or subjectively) in our heads than we can possibly report on.

Which preassumes that we can report on anything that is going on in our heads, whereas such reports could merely be concomitant with the goings-on that they relate to.

 

[Tournesol]

Anything that looks causal could be coincidental -- but where did that assumption ever get anybody ?

 

[Mentat]

Anything that looks causal could be coincidental -- but where did that assumption ever get anybody ?

Where did the causal assumption ever get anybody? Where is everybody trying to go?

I suggest reading David Hume.

 

[Tournesol]

Where did the causal assumption ever get anybody?

It got us Science.

 

[Mentat]

It got us Science.

Which is but one of many games.

Causality is not only unprovable, but it is also useless in many "games".

 

[Doctordick]

Well, I don't know whether you guys are going to welcome my comments or not but I can't resist. It appears that the discussion has settled down to "things are caused" as opposed to "things are coincidental". It seems to me that even the slightest thought on the subject would reveal that, if one is discussing reality. the actual fact of the question absolutely cannot be settled as neither position yields a result which can be checked. And don't think predicting events has the power to settle the issue; that position is unsupportable in any a careful analysis.

However, there is another issue related to the question where a little thought immediately settles the question and that goes directly to the question of science. An explanation, by its very nature, is the embodiment of causality. As soon as you suggest an explanation exists you have established the idea of using causality. Even the extreme case, "it's absolutely random", by saying it has no cause uses the concept of "cause": i.e., the "cause" of the observed result does not exist "in reality" and that is the cause of the observed results. What I am getting at, as confused as it may sound, is that "cause" is a functioning relationship in any explanation. Thus it is, if you are going to explain something, you can't do it without implementing "causality".

On the other hand, "causality" is not needed at all to understand reality. What happens is what happens and that is about all you can prove.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Tournesol]

Which is but one of many games.
Causality is not only unprovable, but it is also useless in many "games".

Ok, so you don't really believe in science or physicalism. You just
disbelieve in qualia and consciousness.

 

[Tournesol]

On the other hand, "causality" is not needed at all to understand reality. What happens is what happens and that is about all you can prove.

I can't see how you can have an "understanding" that doesn't embrace a lot of explaining. Without explanation, all you would have is a vast array of meaningless facts.

 

[Wilhelm]

I think it's silly to talk about causality not being necessary in some language games, when all language games are causal by themselves. I mean, in a language game you need to make one or more assertions before you can make another. Even logic has causality soaked into its bones! To advance an argument against causality is simply illogical.

Now someone may advance the idea that causality is a feature of our explanations rather than the of the explananda. Which is simply ridiculous, as if it were possible to know anything about anything other than what we can explain.

 

[Doctordick]

I can't see how you can have an "understanding" that doesn't embrace a lot of explaining. Without explanation, all you would have is a vast array of meaningless facts.

Just because you "can't see how" is no evidence that it is not possible. It's squat and you should think about it!

I think it's silly to talk about causality not being necessary in some language games, when all language games are causal by themselves. I mean, in a language game you need to make one or more assertions before you can make another. Even logic has causality soaked into its bones! To advance an argument against causality is simply illogical.

I hope you understand that I agree with you on that point.

Now someone may advance the idea that causality is a feature of our explanations rather than the of the explananda. Which is simply ridiculous, as if it were possible to know anything about anything other than what we can explain.

Now this is over the edge. Read what you just said! It is impossible to know anything that we can not explain?? I am afraid I know a lot of things I can't explain! On the other side of that coin is the fact that I am aware of a number of explanations for exactly the same events! Your comment shows every evidence of being pure un-thought-out squat .

Honestrosewater, I am beginning to love your suggestion. :!)

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Wilhelm]

Now this is over the edge. Read what you just said! It is impossible to know anything that we can not explain?? I am afraid I know a lot of things I can't explain!

I'm sorry, I explained myself poorly.

What I tried to say was that you can't possibly come up with an explanation that implies causality does not exist. I know you know many things which you cannot explain, but I'm hoping you'll agree with me that you cannot know that causality does not exist if you cannot explain why. Causality is a very strong intuitive notion, it takes a lot of theorizing to convince someone of the contrary, and that would be the most futile exercise one can possibly engage in.

It seems you agree with me about the role of causality in any explanation, yet fail to see the consequences. It's as if you're saying "the notion that you can understand an explanation in English is an illusion", which would be rather ludicrous, because it's false if I understand and meaningless if I don't. One can only agree with such a notion (some people actually do!) if no further thought is given.

 

[Doctordick]

Wilhelm, you are forgiven. (To error is human; to forgive is divine! ) And I further agree that I cannot prove that causality does not exist; however, I can certainly show that the evidence for causality in reality is non-existent.

Causality is a very strong intuitive notion, it takes a lot of theorizing to convince someone of the contrary, and that would be the most futile exercise one can possibly engage in.

Now that[/color] I am well aware of. I discovered something about twenty years ago and have found that no one is even interested in thinking about it. In fact, I would say the scientific community is extremely adamant on the issue. So adamant in fact that, to date, no competent scientist has even disdained to talk with me on the subject.

It's as if you're saying "the notion that you can understand an explanation in English is an illusion", which would be rather ludicrous, because it's false if I understand and meaningless if I don't.

There is another view only slightly askew of your position but so far from your paradigm that it would absolutely never occur to you. If you are interested, read my posts to "Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?" You might start with my final post, it being easy to find. If you have any arguments with what I am saying there, post some comments.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Fliption]

Sorry for my late response but I have not been able to log into this site for over a week.

It means that I will counter every point (or, at least, almost every point) that my opponent makes.

Yes, you are skeptical of your opponents. My point was that your skepticism does not enter into the process of determining who your opponents are. So I say you are selectively skeptical.

No, arrogance comes with age. May I never grow old .

I think age brings about a more well-rounded person. You think it brings about arrogance. Only one of us knows what age brings. The other one just thinks he does. Now that's arrogant

Wrong. If there were a historical reason for our using empty terms, then we would indeed be using them, regardless of their "emptiness". Again, this is covered in the beginning posts of "Wrong Turns".

There's that nasty habit of saying "wrong" in a philosophy forum. This is a philosophy forum, not a high school math team contest. I am open to learning about other views, including this language game view. But just stating the conclusions as if they are facts is not going to convince me of anything. That's what being a skeptic is all about.

The history of the terms I'm attacking is thoroughly indicative of their being biased and created a priori with no reference to discovery.

I disagree. The terms I use I use based on my own experience. A posteriori is empirical. The thing you don't like about it is that it isn't objective. This assumption that everything must be objective automatically assumes anything else cannot exists. This is why I say that you basically use the laws of physicalism to critque anti-physicalists claims. This just seems flawed to me. This isn't being skeptical at all.

And it has meaning to you because you were raised in a society that has followed the historical path that I outline in "Wrong Turns".

Only I know what meaning it has for me. As a reminder, you are working from a minority philsophical view; not a scientific fact.

I refer you to my new thread, dear Thrasymachus, and ask you to stop acting as though you have any idea about why I debate as I do (except as revealed to you by my own explicit statements).

I'm sorry. But I am completely justified in developing an opinion about you. After 40+ pages of participating in frustrating, simplistic word games and tactics that only seem to defend ONE view, I feel I have earned that right. But I will be glad to go on record there to.

 

[Tournesol]

Just because you "can't see how" is no evidence that it is not possible.

That was a polite way of asking you to justify your claim (that you can understand things without explanation/causation)

 

[Wilhelm]

I further agree that I cannot prove that causality does not exist; however, I can certainly show that the evidence for causality in reality is non-existent

This is nonsense. A thousand teatrises on the evidence against causality go down the drain when faced with simple empirical facts. Paper (and now computer screens) can take any rubbish.

There is another view only slightly askew of your position but so far from your paradigm that it would absolutely never occur to you.

I have read your posts but all I can say is that your view is not only far from my paradigm, it's also mistaken. As a matter of logic, no one can possibly conclude anything true starting from the premises you start.

It should be clear to anyone that dualism is a figment of our imagination, that reality is by definition a monistic entity, because also by definition there exists only one reality. Anyone who starts out with the notion that an explanation of reality is not part of reality itself is doomed to failure. The real challenge is to come up with an explanation that includes itself without ending up in infinite regression. I believe it's possible but I have never seen anyone do it.

 

[Mentat]

Ok, so you don't really believe in science or physicalism. You just
disbelieve in qualia and consciousness.

Belief is useless to me here. "Disbelief" is the belief that another opinion is wrong, and is thus also useless. I am defending the position I have chosen to defend, simply because I have chosen to defend it. I could turn out to be a Bible-thumpin', Jesus-lovin', fire-and-brimstone Christian and it would make no difference whatsoever to your inability to counter me successfully.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well Wilhelm, you've got a nice closed thought system that suits you, and in fact I agree with a lot of your conclusions. But "It's obvious" is not a logical argument. Dr. Johnson kicking the stone in reply to Berkeley was not doing philosophy. State your premises and draw your conclusions as tightly as you can, that's the way to do it.

 

[Mentat]

Sorry for my late response but I have not been able to log into this site for over a week.

I too have been scarce, of late.

Yes, you are skeptical of your opponents. My point was that your skepticism does not enter into the process of determining who your opponents are. So I say you are selectively skeptical.

You decide who my opponent is. The moment you make a claim you make yourself my opponent. I can either take up the challenge of countering it, or I can leave it alone entirely. Read "Mentat's Method" in the GD forum, Flip.

I think age brings about a more well-rounded person. You think it brings about arrogance. Only one of us knows what age brings. The other one just thinks he does. Now that's arrogant

First off, I only said that arrogance came with age because your previous post was arrogant, and you are old...it was an inference from the facts available to me. As it is, I usually admire older people (and indeed, admire you; if less on this particular thread than usual), since they have experiences and wisdom and (usually) a greater willingness to share them.

Also, if one starts out a circle, they cannot get any more round. That you presume to know how well-rounded I am is a further indication of your presumptiousness.

There's that nasty habit of saying "wrong" in a philosophy forum. This is a philosophy forum, not a high school math team contest. I am open to learning about other views, including this language game view. But just stating the conclusions as if they are facts is not going to convince me of anything. That's what being a skeptic is all about.

First of all, I really wish you wouldn't lecture me on skepticism (or anything else, if you can help it). I am willing to learn from you, but not as your "lesser", merely as one who does not yet know what you know. That's why I was reluctant to reveal my age until after I'd established a name for myself on the PFs. As it is, most other members have avoided the natural tendency to condescend to a younger person (either by virtue of having formed their opinions about me before I revealed my age, or by virtue of not being so opinionated). Please do the same.

As to my saying "wrong", that is simply because I had already told you where to find the answers to your questions, yet you persist in asking them here. You continue to make statements that have already been countered in another thread, and I continue to point you to that thread.

I disagree. The terms I use I use based on my own experience. A posteriori is empirical. The thing you don't like about it is that it isn't objective. This assumption that everything must be objective automatically assumes anything else cannot exists. This is why I say that you basically use the laws of physicalism to critque anti-physicalists claims. This just seems flawed to me. This isn't being skeptical at all.

But it's also not what I'm doing. I use the history of the terms (their etymology) to explain to you why your terms are not necessarily good ones. I use this historical approach to show you that these terms may be quite "empty", in that they don't refer to anything real, and I ask you to consider the argument from that same historical approach.

Only I know what meaning it has for me. As a reminder, you are working from a minority philsophical view; not a scientific fact.

What difference does that make?

I'm sorry. But I am completely justified in developing an opinion about you. After 40+ pages of participating in frustrating, simplistic word games and tactics that only seem to defend ONE view, I feel I have earned that right.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to post it here. And then you dare to tell me what a philosophy forum is for? You're the one who's using it to make personal comments in the hope of discrediting the opponent without ever having to address his argument.

 

[Wilhelm]

Well Wilhelm, you've got a nice closed thought system that suits you, and in fact I agree with a lot of your conclusions. But "It's obvious" is not a logical argument.

I'm not sure what you are referring to; I searched for "it's obvious" in my recent posts and couldn't find it. For one thing, I'm of the opinion that few things are obvious.

If you are referring to my position regarding causality, which I stated to Doctordick, then you should know full well that no one has ever been able to successfully defend causality from a philosophical perspective. I certainly won't be foolish enough to try.

Dr. Johnson kicking the stone in reply to Berkeley was not doing philosophy

Yet ironically Johnson's cynic gesture became far more famous than Berkeley's ideas. It does strike a chord with a lot of people.

The essential problem is that no one can be forced to understand something if they set their minds against it. That is true for each one of us, myself included, which is why I believe kicking a stone may be worth more than a million philosophical teatrises. Reality is the ultimate judge of our ideas, even for people who believe reality doesn't exist.

 

[Fliption]

I too have been scarce, of late.

I meant that I technically could not log in! My password expired and the process to reset it did not work!

You decide who my opponent is. The moment you make a claim you make yourself my opponent. I can either take up the challenge of countering it, or I can leave it alone entirely. Read "Mentat's Method" in the GD forum, Flip.

I am now pro Dennett. I have read his book "Consciousness explained" and believe he is accurate. This view requires fewer assumptions than the views of Chalmers and is therefore more appealing to me.

I suspect you'll be leaving this one alone.

Also, if one starts out a circle, they cannot get any more round. That you presume to know how well-rounded I am is a further indication of your presumptiousness.

I haven't said anything about your specific well-roundedness. You're putting words into my mouth. I would never make such a claim. If you ever take the time to take one of those professional personality test, I would be interested in the look on your face when you see how accurate the results are in seemingly unrelated areas from what the questions were asking. I will especially enjoy you calling the test "arrogant". Humans are pretty easy to categorize. You're not all that unique.

First of all, I really wish you wouldn't lecture me on skepticism (or anything else, if you can help it). I am willing to learn from you, but not as your "lesser", merely as one who does not yet know what you know. That's why I was reluctant to reveal my age until after I'd established a name for myself on the PFs. As it is, most other members have avoided the natural tendency to condescend to a younger person (either by virtue of having formed their opinions about me before I revealed my age, or by virtue of not being so opinionated). Please do the same.

Now this really irritates me. I challenge anyone to go back and research my dealings with you. If I have made any comment about age, it is EXTEMELY rare. I do not believe I have done it here either. I think I have been overly accomodating on this age issue. I'm not even sure why this came up here. I just made a comment about "my" age. Perhaps your sensitivity to such an issue explains your approach somewhat.

As to my saying "wrong", that is simply because I had already told you where to find the answers to your questions, yet you persist in asking them here. You continue to make statements that have already been countered in another thread, and I continue to point you to that thread.

I'm asking no questions. I am merely telling you that language is useful if it communicates. That is what it is for! If the word has meaning to me and it communicates what I'm referring to, then it is useful and not "empty". Sorry you don't agree but that doesn't make it "wrong".

But it's also not what I'm doing. I use the history of the terms (their etymology) to explain to you why your terms are not necessarily good ones. I use this historical approach to show you that these terms may be quite "empty", in that they don't refer to anything real, and I ask you to consider the argument from that same historical approach.

But they do refer to something real to me. Why is this so hard to understand? I don't care about historical uses. I don't believe that god handed down a book of words with the "right" definitions in it.

What difference does that make?

All the difference in the world. It is the only thing that matters.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to post it here. And then you dare to tell me what a philosophy forum is for? You're the one who's using it to make personal comments in the hope of discrediting the opponent without ever having to address his argument.

Nice try. But I haven't made any personal comments unrelated to the topic at hand. I have every right to call out a biased position if I see one. I will typically do this when a person insists on clinging to an idea even though they cannot defend it in any effective way coupled with humiliating instances of being told I'm "Wrong".

 

[Tournesol]

Belief is useless to me here. "Disbelief" is the belief that another opinion is wrong, and is thus also useless. I am defending the position I have chosen to defend, simply because I have chosen to defend it. I could turn out to be a Bible-thumpin', Jesus-lovin', fire-and-brimstone Christian and it would make no difference whatsoever to your inability to counter me successfully.

Sure. You couldn't get any more dogmatic.

 

[Tournesol]

If you are referring to my position regarding causality, which I stated to Doctordick, then you should know full well that no one has ever been able to successfully defend causality from a philosophical perspective. I certainly won't be foolish enough to try.

Really ? Perhaps you could start by telling us what is wrong with Kant's arguments.

 

[Mentat]

I meant that I technically could not log in! My password expired and the process to reset it did not work!

I didn't mean to be offensive, I had really been scarce. Not for the same reason though.

I am now pro Dennett. I have read his book "Consciousness explained" and believe he is accurate. This view requires fewer assumptions than the views of Chalmers and is therefore more appealing to me.

I suspect you'll be leaving this one alone.

Because to counter it would endanger the arguments I'm currently holding on other threads, with other members. As I've said before, no Pyrrhonean would ever suggest countering yourself in public debate. It wouldn't even be an argument (except in some weird, schizophrenic way). That Chalmerean, post-Kantian, Dualistic concepts are the most popular here accounts completely for my continued arguments toward eliminativism. If you can turn the popular tide, I will indeed argue toward Chalmers et al.

I haven't said anything about your specific well-roundedness. You're putting words into my mouth.

No, I'm not. Look, I don't mean to be offensive here (though I know I have been), but when one says that well-roundedness comes from age, knowing that they have an enormous advantage, age-wise, over the one to whom they are speaking, the implication is clear.

If you ever take the time to take one of those professional personality test, I would be interested in the look on your face when you see how accurate the results are in seemingly unrelated areas from what the questions were asking. I will especially enjoy you calling the test "arrogant". Humans are pretty easy to categorize. You're not all that unique.

I have taken personality tests. According to "emode.com" I'm an "abstract reasoner" who can bring together completely unrelated concepts, coherently, or take apart seemingly coherent ones.

Now this really irritates me. I challenge anyone to go back and research my dealings with you. If I have made any comment about age, it is EXTEMELY rare. I do not believe I have done it here either. I think I have been overly accomodating on this age issue. I'm not even sure why this came up here. I just made a comment about "my" age. Perhaps your sensitivity to such an issue explains your approach somewhat.

I don't mean to be irritating. Please tell me how else I was supposed to take the explicit profession that your wisdom (or well-roundedness, or whatever you want to call it) has accompanied your age. In case you've forgotten, we were debating a point of deep philosophical import. To mention age as some asset you've got on your side is to imply just those comments about age that you claim to avoid making (and you're probably right, you probably haven't explicitly stated that which you've thoroughly implied).

I'm not trying to be polemic, I just wish you'd stop analyzing me, and start analyzing my argument. That's what people in a debate are supposed to do (unless it's a political one ).

I'm asking no questions. I am merely telling you that language is useful if it communicates. That is what it is for! If the word has meaning to me and it communicates what I'm referring to, then it is useful and not "empty". Sorry you don't agree but that doesn't make it "wrong".

A checker is useful. A checker can be used to play backgammon; indeed, the game of backgammon cannot be played sans checkers. However, a checker is not intrinsically useful, and its moves are not intrinsic either, since, if they were, I could use a checker to play chess. The checker only has use in the games that use it, and under the rules of those games.

So, also, a word only has the use that its particular language-game assigns to it. This is nothing greatly remarkable, until you get a language-game that claims to be able to judge all other language-games, all other fields of study. Then you've got what's wrong with Philosophy, as it's currently conducted, according to Rorty.

But they do refer to something real to me. Why is this so hard to understand? I don't care about historical uses. I don't believe that god handed down a book of words with the "right" definitions in it.

I can't believe I used the world "real" the way I did. I retract my statement, and apologize for having made it.

As to your words referring to something "real", that's just another part of your language-game (the term "real", that is).

All the difference in the world. It is the only thing that matters.

Says who? You? It may be the only thing that matters in your belief-system, but it doesn't hold much water in a lot of other systems. In fact, the term "scientific fact" could be argued to be utterly meaningless too, since science is not in the business of establishing absolute, unarguable facts (as per any of the philosophers of science I've ever read).

Nice try. But I haven't made any personal comments unrelated to the topic at hand. I have every right to call out a biased position if I see one.

No you don't. It is not relevant to the discussion whether my viewpoint is biased, what is relevant is what is being argued.

As to this...

I will typically do this when a person insists on clinging to an idea even though they cannot defend it in any effective way coupled with humiliating instances of being told I'm "Wrong".

I did indeed defend the viewpoint, quite successfully, and continue to do so on another thread. I once again refer you to my thread: "Wrong Turns". It's in the "General Philosophy" forum.

 

[Mentat]

Sure. You couldn't get any more dogmatic.

I am only equalling you. That's how I argue. The more dogmatic and staunch you get, the more I must become the same. If you'd remained (or, rather, if you'd ever been) open-minded and ready to change your views when a good argument presented itself, I would have been likewise.

 

[Philocrat]

I believe that there is but one reality where everything co-exists in a consistent paradigm. In my opinion, the distinctions and labels we use are all man made based on our epistomology. Of course, there has to be something about the ontology that leads to the epistemic differences, but I think the ontologies are consistent whereas, our limitations many times result in the epistemic differences not being consistent. This is why I am so torn on what to believe when it comes to ontology. Sometimes I feel like I'm skydiving without a parachute.

Give everything you can find in a given ontology a single role or multiple roles to play. For a part devoid of a role in an ontology is epistemologically meaningless. It might as well not exist in the first place!

 

[Fliption]

Because to counter it would endanger the arguments I'm currently holding on other threads, with other members. As I've said before, no Pyrrhonean would ever suggest countering yourself in public debate. It wouldn't even be an argument (except in some weird, schizophrenic way). That Chalmerean, post-Kantian, Dualistic concepts are the most popular here accounts completely for my continued arguments toward eliminativism. If you can turn the popular tide, I will indeed argue toward Chalmers et al.

This only makes my point about be selectively skeptical. I don't buy this "I can't disagree with myself in public" business. If it's a different thread what difference does it make? If anything, I would think it is exactly what a person who doesn't believe what they are saying would be doing.

No, I'm not. Look, I don't mean to be offensive here (though I know I have been), but when one says that well-roundedness comes from age, knowing that they have an enormous advantage, age-wise, over the one to whom they are speaking, the implication is clear.

I did not say that well-roundedness comes from age. This implies that it doesn't come from anything else except age. I said it comes "with" age. This doesn't preclude that there are other ways to get it. Besides when I said this we were NOT talking about a philosophical point. I was merely making a personal observation about being able to see through agendas etc. It seems clear to me now that you are overly sensitive to this issue.

I have taken personality tests. According to "emode.com" I'm an "abstract reasoner" who can bring together completely unrelated concepts, coherently, or take apart seemingly coherent ones.

I have taken some that are professionally administered. It is quite shocking.

I don't mean to be irritating. Please tell me how else I was supposed to take the explicit profession that your wisdom (or well-roundedness, or whatever you want to call it) has accompanied your age. In case you've forgotten, we were debating a point of deep philosophical import. To mention age as some asset you've got on your side is to imply just those comments about age that you claim to avoid making (and you're probably right, you probably haven't explicitly stated that which you've thoroughly implied).

See above.

I'm not trying to be polemic, I just wish you'd stop analyzing me, and start analyzing my argument. That's what people in a debate are supposed to do (unless it's a political one ).

I would be glad to do this but the problem that we keep having is that your "arguments" only point to the fact that you aren't communicating like a person would be if they were truly interested in communicating. It's almost as if the real point is to impress people and not to communicate with them. Sorry if I'm mistaken but it sure does come off this way.

A checker is useful. A checker can be used to play backgammon; indeed, the game of backgammon cannot be played sans checkers. However, a checker is not intrinsically useful, and its moves are not intrinsic either, since, if they were, I could use a checker to play chess. The checker only has use in the games that use it, and under the rules of those games.

Well now, I couldn't agree more. This is exactly my point! This is what I mean when I talk about this medium being difficult to communicate with. It seems we agree on this and didn't even know it. Of course a word is not intrinsically useful. I have been saying this forever. This is why I am saying that you can't tell me my words are "empty". Empty when compared to what? There is nothing intrinsic to compare it's content to. The language game you describe is all that language is. There is no other way to use language. So whatever conclusions you are coming to about philosophy because of this view can also be drawn about the very view you are defending. It just seems to end in an "everything is nonsense" conclusion.

So, also, a word only has the use that its particular language-game assigns to it. This is nothing greatly remarkable, until you get a language-game that claims to be able to judge all other language-games, all other fields of study. Then you've got what's wrong with Philosophy, as it's currently conducted, according to Rorty.

And how is it that Rorty's language game has escaped his own criticism?

As to your words referring to something "real", that's just another part of your language-game (the term "real", that is).

Just as "multiple drafts" is a part of your language game.

Says who? You? It may be the only thing that matters in your belief-system, but it doesn't hold much water in a lot of other systems.

Perhaps that is true about the word. But it isn't true about my experience.

No you don't. It is not relevant to the discussion whether my viewpoint is biased, what is relevant is what is being argued.

It is relevant because biased viewpoints are generally supported by flawed arguments and the biased participant usually isn't able to see the flaw that is so obvious to everyone else. How else should I attempt to point this out to you except to point out the bias? Perhaps I should just give up.

I did indeed defend the viewpoint, quite successfully, and continue to do so on another thread. I once again refer you to my thread: "Wrong Turns". It's in the "General Philosophy" forum.

OK fine. As I've said, I have an interest in understanding other legitimate views. But as a "real" skeptic and not just an actor, I expect to be convinced. And being subjected to accusations of being "wrong" or brainwashed by Kant without successfully convincing me doesn't sit well with me.