On ''what there is''

Anybody who read about logic know Frege drama...

And Quine ’s meaning defense theory againt the referential behavioristic theory is not the most sophisticated metaphysic there is in history... 😁 It takes not much time to figure it out... Try to figure out Charles Sanders Peirce in one hour ? 😁😊Or the 13 century polimath genius Raimon Lulle the founder of combinatoric tree feed back calculus in the understanding of Norbert Wiener... Than so much for Frege and Quine....

Then if you want to brag about erudition pick an unknown extraordinary genius: Lucian Blaga for example and why not the polymath Hoene Wronski ? Or Simon L. Frank? I am sure that you dont even know their name...

Like some says this is an " exercise in academic vanity"...

But like another rightfully observe it is entertaining more than insults about politics...

Then welcome to the OP humor and erudition... I apologize for my answers but you do brag first about 2 "little" academic philosophers, Quine and Frege....I prefer non academic giants...



I myself are not a scientist, but i study mathematic and philosophy, some linguistic and poetry and other things i dare not to mention here... I am more able to related things than to concentrate on one only forever...For example i figure for myself the link between acoustic and audio by creating my own mechanical equalizer... So much for audio.... I listen music now at least not sounds...I will not go forever with branded names audio cult... I prefer basics here....

I am neither atheist nor a narrow believer...

Consciousness is too mysterious and evident to be reduced to materialism rant....


And way before "gavagai" there is the silent tree of symbolic forms and activities, of which language is one branch....

Then no metaphysic based on dying nominalism and on technological religion could satisfy me...

The idolatry of technology is not science but the theater on which plays the actual drama, which roots are in a spiritual battle for humanity soul... Dont take my point to be a religious one, you will miss it completely...Science is related and intertwined with technological history, but consciousness is NOT knowledge like some transhumanist want you to think of...Or like the scientist Goethe the real father of phenomenology remind us....

Instead of reading Frege i will suggest any Russian philosopher totally unknown in the US...This will be a remedy for any anglo saxon student.... 😁😊

But if you stick at all cost to english language try Whitehead....He forgot to be stupid to say the least....

Or a Serbo-croat german thinker : Rudolf steiner will do the job...

My best to all....



"All geniuses sees the same light, only moles seek their own tunnel for comfort"- Anonymus Smith

holmz-

Well I made it a minute in (almost) and it was seeming to be a religious talk.

That's because a) you only made it a minute in and b) it turned out to be one of the many Watts videos where they cut up and pieced together different talks. I just listened to the first few seconds, it started off the talk I thought it was, only later realized it was all chopped up. There are elements of religion but it is equal parts science and philosophy.  

The Cliff Notes version is there are two great Myths or ways we view the world- the Ceramic Model, and the Fully Automatic.  

The Ceramic Model is the religious one, in which everything is just mere stuff, clay in the Bible, into which God breathes life. But really it is all just dead lifeless stuff. And so in the Ceramic Model we human beings are all fundamentally different and apart from everything else. Animals to a lesser extent as well.  

The Fully Automatic Model is the one we think of as scientific and in this one everything is just lifeless dead particles just like clay only we dispense with God and say the mind and soul are nothing more than artifacts of all these billiard balls bouncing around.   

There's a lot more, like I said this is the Cliff Notes version. Expanding on each model it becomes increasingly clear just how much they each are missing. It does take a while though. Watts is good, but even he cannot convey the nature of reality in less than a minute.    

https://youtu.be/UPcs3B1omx8?t=27

I listen music now at least not sounds -- Mahgister

If you are not attending a live performance or hearing a live stream of a performance, then you are not listening to music, you are listening to recordings.

This post doesn't belong on an audio forum, so I should just resist the temptation of weighing in. But I can't.

First, Quine's point (in "Ontological Relativity," from which comes the "Gavagai" coinage), as well as in several other places, is just that our best scientific theories should govern our ontology. This is a fancy way of saying that if an accepted and useful scientific theory demands that we regard a given theoretical construct as "real," then we should do so. As David Lewis put it, although "sets" were "unknown to Homo javanensis," they are nevertheless indispensable in modern mathematics and therefore should be regarded as "real." This question dates at least to Plato, for whom numbers were more "real" than the things of perception they enumerated, being pure intelligible entities not subject to perspective, change over time, and so forth. Which is to say that, although they proclaim themselves to be "empiricists," Quine, et al., are really committed to idealism—to the "reality" of non-empirical theoretical entities.

This insight dovetails with what I think mahgister was trying to say in citing Goethe. But Goethe's view just follows Kant: the "real" is always already a construct of consciousness—of perception, which is sense information processed and interpreted by the mind. The real "in itself" is simply unknowable. Thus, Goethe says that perception is already "theoretical": "Alles vergängliche / Ist nur ein Gleichnis." This insight makes it exceedingly difficult to know where to draw the lines between the "real" and the "imaginary"; in effect, the real IS what "imagination" constructs for experience. But that is NOT to say there is no independent reality "in itself"; rather, we just don't know anything about it except insofar as we experience it (that is, insofar as it becomes mental).

Coincidentally, I also speak (or read) 4 languages. Serbo-Croatian isn't one of them, but Croatian is. My wife's mother was a Serb, her father a Croat (we met in Germany). There is no such language as "Serbo-Croatian." Serbian and Croatian are, of course, very similar as Slavic languages; Slovenian is also similar, and Slovenia was part of the former Yugoslavia along with Serbia and Croatia. But, just for instance, Serbian and Croatian aren't even written in the same alphabet! Books published in Belgrade (Beograd) are printed in Cyrillic. My wife tells me that there are indeed words for "niece" and "nephew" in Serbian as well as in Croatian. I'd give examples, but this post is already egregiously gratuitous.

What a bunch of useless navel gazing and a terrible waste of time.

Gonna blame it on being cooped-up due to Covid restrictions?