What Philosophical Questions Stump You Most

[raw_thought]

In other words,the concept blue generates an infinite regress and so cannot explain to us what blue is.

 

[Skwim]

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

If you're addressing me, Then yes I do, especially when there's nothing to comprehend. Your mantra, "the actual color blue and the concept blue have nothing in common" poses no difficulty; actually it's pretty plain English; however, lacking an explanation of why this is so, there's nothing to comprehend. So how about helping out we ignorant masses and answer the questions?:

1. what is the concept (of) blue?​

And

2. what is the color blue?

​

If you aren't addressing me, then I still await a reply to post 54.





PS. it would be helpful if you used the "reply" function in the bottom right hand corner of the posts you're responding to.

 

[raw_thought]

Read some Wittgenstein. If you had some critical thinking skills you would understand my point. Luckily everyone else understands. Simply mibdlessly repeating the same question shows that you do not understand what Wittgenstein is talking about. I cannot make it so simple that even you can understand it.

 

[raw_thought]

There is nothing to comprehend? So how do words connect with reality. Simply saying that they do is not an explanation. Its like asking, why do apples fall to the earth and you answer they do. We know that. An educated person would describe gravity etc. That would be an explanation.

 

[raw_thought]

Read posts 57,58,60 and 61 .
If you are confused, ask a question . That is called civilized debate. Mere name calling reveals that you are a silly troll that loves having everyone here laugh at you.

 

[Sunstone]

1. what is the concept (of) blue?​

And

2. what is the color blue?
​

Given that you profess to think Wittgenstein's ideas trite and obvious, it might be amusing if you would attempt to answer your questions yourself -- for surely the answers must be trite and obvious to you.

 

[raw_thought]

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

Yes, Wittgenstein shows us that there are mysteries in what we think are mundane.

 

[Skwim]

Read some Wittgenstein. If you had some critical thinking skills you would understand my point. Luckily everyone else understands. Simply mibdlessly repeating the same question shows that you do not understand what Wittgenstein is talking about. I cannot make it so simple that even you can understand it.

Thank you for confirming your inability to explain defend yourself by answering two simple questions.

 

[raw_thought]

Thank you for confirming your inability to explain defend yourself by answering two simple questions.

read posts 60, 58,57,52
You really are atroll! Taking something out of context (leaving out my explanations ) and trying to make it sound as if what I just quoted is my only explanation.

 

[Skwim]

Given that you profess to think Wittgenstein's ideas trite and obvious, it might be amusing if you would attempt to answer your questions yourself -- for surely the answers must be trite and obvious to you.

Not "ideas" but his point you were talking about.

Nope, not going to do raw's homework for him. Besides, this fruitless exchange has grown tiresome, so I'm leaving for more profitable exchanges.

 

[raw_thought]

Explain how Wittgenstein was wrong (in the balls in a bag thought experiment ) and that an infinite regress is not involved.

 

[raw_thought]

We offer arguments. You never respond to them.You simply name call like a child.

 

[raw_thought]

If you dont have ANY arguments, why do you post?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Love, live, and learn.

Questions of love have been tearing me asunder. But not just love - I've reached a point where I'm ready to come out to my family and the world, but I also have very deep feelings of love for a woman I admire, but there is the whole trans thing and even if that wasn't an issue I really don't think she'd move away from her family and even just making 10 dollars an hour, with a college degree, is just too difficult here, and I am chronically single and lonely.
"A crisis of dasein" barely begins to describe it.

 

[raw_thought]

Be troll. Enjoy watching reality tv!

 

[raw_thought]

skwim, obviously has never even heard of Wittgenstein .

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

In the philosophies of Saussure, in the world of semiotics there is no connection between the word blue, and the concept of the color of blue. When I say blue (signifier), this is merely just a word, but you understand it as the fifth color of the rainbow because that is what we understand "blue" (signified) to mean. What's a bottle? It's absolutely nothing, it's entirely meaningless, until we define it as a container, usually of a cylinder shape, and typically used for storage.

 

[Sunstone]

Besides, this fruitless exchange has grown tiresome, so I'm leaving for more profitable exchanges.

Fair enough.

 

[raw_thought]

But to sum up my points.
How words connect to reality is a mystery.
Why? Bexause words have nothing in common with concepts and concepts have nothing in common with reality. Suppose I try to explain what an elephant is by handing you an apple. Since they have nothing in common, I have not explained to you what an elephant is. Imagine a map. How does it inform us of the landscape ? Because it has something in common with the landscape. The shape of the lines on the map are similar to the shape of the land.
However ,lets provisionally (temporarily assume that the absurd idea that conxepts resemble reality is true) take the common sense theory how concepts attach to reality. Wittgenstein used the colored balls in a bag thought experiment to show that even then, we have no explanation as to how concepts attach to reality. I have a bag full of colored balls. Red, blue, green etc. I tell you to pick out a red one. The common sense theory about how this is possible is that you hear the word "red"

 

[raw_thought]

search your mind dor the concept "red" and then match that up with the red ball. ( BTW if your concept of red has nothing in common with the actual color eedthen how can you match yhem?) . However , that cant be true. As Witt said, suppose I ask you to imagine a red patch. What do you do? Search your mindfor a concept " red"? Obviously ,this entails an infinte eegeess and so does not explain how we connected the conxept eed with the red ball.