Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Wittgenstein. Tractatus Logico-philosophicus.
Does this maxin command any respect in the 21st Century?
Does this maxin command any respect in the 21st Century?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Logical Positivism
- Thread starter GrowingSmaller
- Start date
tucker58
Jesus is Lord
Growing smaller you are fun and I mean that honestly.
What you have created here is a "Catch 22" type of reality. Damned if you do and damned if you don't
. My wife is constantly telling me to keep my mouth shut and I keep telling her that sometimes things need to be said. But do they? Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
love you,
tuck
Upvote
0
Amusing.Growing smaller you are fun and I mean that honestly.
What you have created here is a "Catch 22" type of reality. Damned if you do and damned if you don't
But do they? Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
love you,
tuck
Upvote
0
Logical positivism is like philosophical skepticism except worse, which is a pretty hard feat to accomplish.
Upvote
0
Was it not the intellectual predecessor of Popper's falsificationism? From the theory that a term must have verifiable reference to be meaningful, to the theory that science must make falsifiable hypotheses, in order to be scientific.
Upvote
0
That was not the purpose. It was to give a criteria by which a statement can be regarded as meaningful or not. The term "sofa" has meaning because it refers to an object which we can verify the existence of. Likewise "chesterton's sofa is brown" can be checked to see if it is true or false, and ought therefore to be thought to be meaningful. Terms like "God" or "goodness" etc were regarded as not to have verifiable reference, and therefore were regarded as nonsensical.
Upvote
0
I dont see why. Skepticism says that nothing can be known. On the other hand, postivism says that atomic verifiable facts or falsehoods can be known.
Upvote
0
One, I don't think anything is necessarily meaningless just because it can't be verified, and two, who is to say what has verifiable reference and what hasn't?
Upvote
0
1) That was Wittgensteins later view, but earlier he was more of a logical positivist. I think that if we look for the meaning of the term in its extension (eg that cat on the sofa is the menaing of the term "chesterton's cat"), then terms without visible or verifiable extension are meaningless, at least meaninless as far as wee can tell.
2) I think that the burden of proof in on the one who makes the claim. So if you have found verifiable extension for the term "God" themn its up to you to prove it. If I say that I have a "quiziquat" as a pet, and claim it's on my sofa, its up to me to demonstrate there is such a thing as a quiziquat on my sofa.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Does anyone know if Logical Positivism was the eraliest form of philosophical non-cognitivism (if thats what it is:o).
Upvote
0
Spoken like someone who never got a fist in the face!
But you're Buddhist. Surely that pain would be an illusion.
Upvote
0
Gracchus
Senior Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 7,199
- 821
- Faith
- Pantheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
First Noble Truth: Life is suffering. Second Noble Truth: Suffering arises from craving and clinging.
Life is real. Pain is real, but it needn't make you suffer. Do you not find it the least bit ironic that you, a Christian, accuse me of reacting to illusions, when you cling to all sorts of unreal things, and crave a future life without the concommittent inevitable suffering?
Upvote
0
Made me think of this:
Life is pain, Highness! Anyone who says differently is selling something. ~The Princess Bride
Upvote
0
I wasn't actually accusing you; I was being sarcastic. I think everything's very real; pain, suffering, pleasure, love, goodness, everything. But I crave pretty much the same things Guatama and every person craves.
Upvote
0
Gracchus
Senior Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 7,199
- 821
- Faith
- Pantheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
To be sarcastic is, often, to accuse while maintaining "deniability".
I would have to disagree. I believe many commonly used terms denote imaginary things. (e.g. freedom, justice)
Siddhartha Gautama freed himself from attachments. (Or so we are told.)
Of course, the rabbi Yeshua said much the same thing: "Take no thought for tomorrow, asking 'What shall we eat, what shall we drink, with what shall we be clothed?'"
Upvote
0
Similar threads
