New answers tagged

1

McLuhan was a philosopher of media, so everything he says should be related to that. "human psyche fragmentation, primitivism, and social conformism" Lets unpack his use of these terms. "Primitivism has become the vulgar cliche of much modern art and speculation." - from The Gutenberg Galaxy "If the criminal appears as a nonconformist who is unable ...


0

See the full paragraph of Leviathan, Ch.IV On speech: "when men make a name of two names, whose significations are contradictory and inconsistent; as this name, an incorporeal body [...]. For whensoever any affirmation is false, the two names of which it is composed, put together and made one, signify nothing at all. For example, if it be a false ...


0

The OP quotes Wikipedia If the idea of a private language is inconsistent ... if one cannot have a private language, it might not make any sense to talk of private experiences or of private mental states. In reply I quote Binswanger For Heraclitus, genuine awakeness is, negatively put, the awakening from private opinion (doxa) and subjective ...


1

The relevant part of your question is basically directed to how humans evolved -- which is Anthropology, and how we live now, which is Sociology. Anthropology presumes that our "nature" was set in a small group tribal environment. It is remarkable that a psychology geared toward small groups could possibly allow us to live successfully in cities of tens of ...


1

The Greek original meaning was 'manifestation' and in Jewish biblical studies is the distinction between divine revelation directly from God himself (to Moses) as opposed to a rabbinic based interpretation of oral law.


1

Maybe I'm oversimplifying this, but take your Constantinople vs Istanbul example. The people who once called that place Constantinople were not wrong when they called it that. The name of said place changed from Constantinople to Istanbul, as did people's belief about the name of the place. So, at no point was there a mismatch between belief and reality. I ...


0

Wittgenstein's "beetle in a box" argument is easily seen to be incorrect, simply by our successful operation of internal dialog and reasoning processes, and that we succeed with both even as prelingual toddlers. His presumption that we would no longer be able to reason or think to ourselves, if the rest of humanity died out and we could no longer confirm ...


3

Reference is to On Certainty. The context is about "justification" of our knowledge: justification cannot go on forever, in search for an absolute ground. It must stop somewhere (compare with The Problem of Induction, and OC, 135). See: 105. All testing, all confirmation and disconfirmation of a hypothesis takes place already within a system. And this ...


Top 50 recent answers are included