What Philosophical Questions Stump You Most

[Sunstone]

Is it truly better to love and lose that love, than to never love at all?

He or she who never loves, never lives.

 

[raw_thought]

Wittgenstein (in the blue book) made an interesting argument. Suppose I have a bag of balls. Inside is a red ball, yellow ball, blue ball etc. I say pick out the red ball. You do that. I ask how did you do that. You answer, You said "red ball" so I reached into my memory and got the concept "red". I then compared that to the various balls, found a match and then picked up that ball. Wittgenstein then says, suppose I ask you to imagine a red patch, do you first look into your memory of "red"....Obbiously that leads to an absurd infinite regress.

 

[raw_thought]

It is true that Wittgenstein discussed how mistakes are made with language .But his more profound point is that how words attach to reality is a profound mystery.

 

[raw_thought]

Google, "blue book, Wittgenstein ,yellow patch" His argument is there. I am on a tablet and cannot provcide links.

 

[raw_thought]

Since language is what connects us to reality, it is disconcerting to know that that connection makes no sense.

 

[Sunstone]

Since language is what connects us to reality, it is disconcerting to know that that connection makes no sense.

I wouldn't say "since". I'd say, "To the extent that..." But other than that, that's quite a fascinating point, Raw.

 

[raw_thought]

There is a GREAT book ( Waking to wonder, Wittgenstein's existential investigations by Gordon C. Bearn ) that explores this issue in depth.

 

[Deidre]

He or she who never loves, never lives.

And now that I'm engaged, I believe you.

 

[Sunstone]

And now that I'm engaged, I believe you.

Love, live, and learn.

 

[Skwim]

Since comcepts do not resemble reality, how can they reveal anything about reality? For example, if I say," the sky is blue" that tells me something about reality. But how is that possible, when theee is no correspondence between the conxcept blue and the color blue.

So

1. what is the concept (of) blue?​

And

2. what is the color blue?​

And how do they fail to correspond with each other?

I think Wittgenstein's point was that, because concepts need not replicate reality, it is possible and even fairly easy to make a whole slew of mistakes when dealing with them, or attempting to apply them to reality. Just a fact of life.

Which seems to be a rather obvious and trite observation.

 

[Sunstone]

Which seems to be a rather obvious and trite observation.

Everything is rather obvious an trite if you think you already know it.

 

[raw_thought]

The actual color blue and the concept blue have nothing in common. Similarly ,the concept "book" and an actual book have nothing in common. The concept book lacks a specific size, mass, title, form, language... No book resembles that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The actual color blue and the concept blue have nothing in common. Similarly ,the concept "book" and an actual book have nothing in common. The concept book lacks a specific size, mass, title, form, language... No book resembles that.

But when we say "book" the term is understood. The signified is not inherently related to the signiefier, but because of the way our brains process communication, when I say "cat" you understand that I am talking about a feline.

 

[Skwim]

Everything is rather obvious an trite if you think you already know it.

Not at all. Einstein would never have said the mathematics leading up to E = MC² were either obvious or trite just because he understood them. The point you attribute to Wittgenstein is no more monumental than the point that war results in harm.

The actual color blue and the concept blue have nothing in common.

So you've said, but why is this stopping you from answering my questions?

1. what is the concept (of) blue?​

And

2. what is the color blue?​

So, I await your answers, r_t, if you have them. If not then I'll assume you don't know what you're talking about, which I'm beginning to suspect.

 

[raw_thought]

so you agree with me?
Yes, words do communicate but the connection between words and reality has no explanation .

 

[raw_thought]

the above is for post 53. As for your last post..ummm do you have comprehension problems?

 

[raw_thought]

Words have nothing in common with concepts and concepts have nothing in common with reality. Anyway, read some Wittgenstein.

 

[raw_thought]

The actual color blue and the concept blue have nothing in common. Similarly ,the concept "book" and an actual book have nothing in common. The concept book lacks a specific size, mass, title, form, language... No book resembles that.

read that again slowly ,

 

[raw_thought]

Since the concept "blue" tells us nothing about what blue is,.

 

[raw_thought]

Wittgenstein (in the blue book) made an interesting argument. Suppose I have a bag of balls. Inside is a red ball, yellow ball, blue ball etc. I say pick out the red ball. You do that. I ask how did you do that. You answer, You said "red ball" so I reached into my memory and got the concept "red". I then compared that to the various balls, found a match and then picked up that ball. Wittgenstein then says, suppose I ask you to imagine a red patch, do you first look into your memory of "red"....Obbiously that leads to an absurd infinite regress.

read that slowly also skwim