Kantian

...so the deaf could appreciate them.
Still not getting it, John. If identity is internal, how can it ever transcend the limits of privacy into the realm of the public sphere? How do we formulate a coherent scheme to reidentify internal beliefs or private "internal" concepts? Are we born with such internal concepts like "identity?" If not, aren't all our concepts derived from language, which is developed solely by ostensive description?
How do you know that this "reality" exists before we sense it and "recognize" it? How is this conjecture justified? How is stepping away from what is immediately present within the consciousness to postulate the existence of something a priori to our senses at all legitimate? It is true that our mind presupposes certain conditions when we attempt at recognizing the sense data, such as spatial and temporal functions, but after that the entire basis of our language is facilitated along the lines of external symbols, or signs.

Why not?
Heh. Since I am not a biological psychologist, (thank Zod) I don't share this opinion. I do not confuse the mind with the brain, nor do I commit to such naïve reductionistic beliefs. There is no bigger common blunder in philosophy than identifying the mind with the physical, electrical activity in the brain, but there are difficulties with this picture. The mind lacks both location and volume; the mind does not exist in either A-space (spatial distance between temporal locutions) or O-space (3-D space). Both A-space and O-space exist as physical spaces and are spatial in nature. I may be bold enough to declare that the mind is not amenable to reductive analysis. Furthermore, it is possible to state such things like ‘objectivity lies entirely within the mind,’ without referring to a location at all. I suggest you to read the writings of Michael Gazzaniga and Hubert Dreyfus.

And as for the third man argument… when Socrates denies that ideas exist “only in the mind,” Parmenides says that Socrates is espousing mentalist idealism where the only reality is found within the mind.

Then “prototype definitions” are original empirical bits of information, and echoes the copy principle of Hume. You are familiar with the empirical theories of knowledge, I take it?

That merely shifts the goalposts and does not answer the question. Then what is the context of language? Is it another phrase found within grammar and nowhere else? Or have we hit the limits of our language?

I have no quarrel with your attempt at establishing a rapprochement between contrived demarcations of philosophical movements, for it is a fine journey to set on. However, in a holistic sense, a sense of humor is required for that type of foray into the history of thinkers adamantly rejecting one another as furiously an old man sends back a soup in the local deli.

Agreed! We shall have lots of fun!

~Transcendentalist~
__________________
Reason has often led us into transcendent metaphysics that "overstep the limits of all experience, [and] no object adequate to the transcendental ideal can ever be found within experience."

Keith Russell

Kantian asked:

"How do you know that this "reality" exists before we sense it and "recognize" it? How is this conjecture justified? How is stepping away from what is immediately present within the consciousness to postulate the existence of something a priori to our senses at all legitimate? It is true that our mind presupposes certain conditions when we attempt at recognizing the sense data, such as spatial and temporal functions, but after that the entire basis of our language is facilitated along the lines of external symbols, or signs."

Kantian, if you truly believe this, to whom are you addressing this question?

Surely not someone 'a priori to' your senses.

Surely you aren't presupposing that other forum users exist apart from 'our' language, apart from external symbols or signs.

Keith.

Hugo Holbling

Boy - you didn't just miss the boat, Keith; you weren't even at the harbour.

Please don't embarrass yourself further and kindly refrain from derailing the discussion. How about telling us your opinion of the absolute existence of truth? :notworthy

*makes bet with Kantian*

Kantian

So you admit there is no difference.

Please, do not put us [i.e., me] in such suspense, K. What would these numerous ways be?

Let's see your cards, first, kind sir, before i agree wholeheartedly!

~transcendentalist~
__________________
Reason has often led us into transcendent metaphysics that "overstep the limits of all experience, [and] no object adequate to the transcendental ideal can ever be found within experience."

Kantian

:banghead: I'm not sure what you mean by 'this,' because i am doing philosophy by asking questions in order to get John to paint himself into a corner.

And what do you mean by 'a priori?' Surely not 'without experience,' correct?!?

The "a priori forms of intuition" are not the same type of presuppositions as the assumptions a person brings to these discussions.

How can i make such a distinction? If language is not the limits of my world then what is?

~Transcendentalist~
__________________
Reason has often led us into transcendent metaphysics that "overstep the limits of all experience, [and] no object adequate to the transcendental ideal can ever be found within experience."

Waning Moon Conrad

Things exist. Truth is not a thing. Truth is an accurate statement made about things that exist or abstract things that work such as the laws of syllogism.

Keith Russell

Kantian:

If "language is...the limits (sic) of your world", then what do you believe you are talking about, when you use this 'language'?

Keith.

John Page

...therefore an accurate statement is not a thing?

Keith Russell

Waning Moon said:
"Things exist. Truth is not a thing. Truth is an accurate statement made about things that exist or abstract things that work such as the laws of syllogism."

Waning, all you've done is tell us how you use the words 'thing', 'truth', etc.

You haven't explained to which concepts these words refer, nor from which existents these concepts were derived.

I disagree with the way you use these words, but that has no bearing on whether you would agree or disagree with me about actual concepts, or existents, themselves.

Keith.

John Page

As stated in my previous post, identity can be shared through intersubjectivity. Roughly, we can relate through our common external reality by communicating (ergo language). This creates a "shared" reality, if you will.
The concept of identity need not be innate! The mechanism for forming identities internally is part of the learning process.

Language is the medium, not the message.

The pre-existence of reality (w.r.t a subject, measured over time) can be verified experimentally, witness kids learning about their environment and science's exploration of how sense data is received by our bodies and transmitted through our nervous systems. Of course, there may be other (non-transcendental) explanations that I don't know of - perhaps you could enlighten with empirical data.

It seems to me that our faculty of imagination allows us to project and thus presuppose certain conditions (before they occur, if indeed they do occur). This is not the same as an a priori assumption, but may appear as such externally to the mind. Presupposition is, I argue, nature's way of equipping us with the ability to predict certain outcomes (e.g. your arguments, the attack probability of a wild beast, chess moves) - a form of time travel if you wish.

To understand the basis for language, we must first find something to talk about!
This re Tarski. Because I don't think he provided an explanation of the underlying nature of truth, more its relation to other "transcendental ideals".

That is why I used the expression mind/brain - the mind is not yet fully understood and it may employ mechanisms beyond the brain's "electric activity" etc.

Please point me to a proof that the mind lacks location and volume. Do you believe the mind is truly transcendent, thus imprisoning yourself in a world of mysticism?
So what? Socrates has a mental image that is a reflection of external reality - I didn't say I agreed with Socrates or Parmenides.
I'm not happy with the expression "original empirical bits of information". What do you mean, by example?
I just gave it - the context of language is reality.
IYHO, old man!

Cheers, John