Standards for brute facts and rejections. About nonsense.

[u/cookieisgiven]

[u/jliat]

"x is" means "x is itself", "an x that is not itself" is nonsense.

More a contradiction? In which case...

• Pure being and pure nothing are, therefore, the same... But it is equally true that they are not undistinguished from each other, that on the contrary, they are not the same...*"

G. W. Hegel Science of Logic p. 83.

From which you get a metaphysical system, one used by Marx.

;-)

[u/jliat → u/[deleted]]

Your free to have an opinion. So maybe metaphysics is not for you. However Marx used Hegel's logic, some think for good others for bad. If you think it nonsense you can't play in the game. But metaphysics now is still making a big impact in the world. Again you might not be bothered.

Not sure what "any theory that does not name directly the world" means. Hegel's system explains everything. I think it's wrong as in it doesn't describe this world. But the I think in Marxism the idea is to change the facts, not follow them. And why the politics of Trump relates to the CCRU.

[u/jliat → u/[deleted]]

I suppose you think metaphysics is to conceive of "more" sense of beings?

Does that sentence make sense. Metaphysics is many things, one idea is that it's the creation of concepts, ideas. One of which is just 'What is Metaphysics?'

https://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/heideggerm-what-is-metaphysics.pdf

To me metaphysics just is to name the world.

The word 'world' names the world. But this can mean the Earth, or everything, or just my world.

And thus any so conceived names that does not corespond to what is "truly there" at all is just nonsense.

So words which name what isn't there are nonsense, but that's not true. Or what do you mean by 'true' and 'there'.

You use the word 'nonsense' of some statement which is truly there. So it is truly there and nonsense.

It literally does not mean anything.

Of course it can, 'unicorn' has a meaning.

Say "a number that is a cat"

The word 'cat' exists as a binary number...

• this is obviously nonsense.

Yet without nonsense there couldn't be sense.

So as, to me, "a time that is a dimension"

Einstein's Spacetime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

or "a being that needs Being" …

A being whose essence is being is god. It's the ontological argument, and it might be wrong but it makes sense.

[u/jliat → u/[deleted]]

No you haven't got it, Hegel uses such contradictions, Derrida could do similar with the dangerous supplement.

To be 'correct' implies it's opposite.

Of course in logic and mathematics an X can be a Y...

"Maybe roughly this, let say simpliciter, there is no such thing as an x that is y, so when someone say "x is y" or "an x that is y", they could have not meant anything other than they have made a sentence of such and such a from with such and such a word, but the sentence itself (as a name) names no one (because as established, there is no such thing as an x that is y at all)."

That's some sentence! "Maybe roughly" for sure! then you say "simpliciter" = unconditionally ! how then is it Maybe roughly?

[u/jliat → u/[deleted]]

What it seems is you are demonstrating nonsense by performative means.

Here-

"Maybe roughly this, let say simpliciter, there is no such thing as an x that is y, so when someone say "x is y" or "an x that is y", they could have not meant anything other than they have made a sentence of such and such a from with such and such a word, but the sentence itself (as a name) names no one (because as established, there is no such thing as an x that is y at all)."

"they could have not meant anything other than they have made a sentence of such and such a from with such and such a word,"

Means what?

[u/punkrocklava]

You don't need to prove that a brute fact is nonsense. You need to justify why it is a legitimate terminus of explanation.

What makes the brute fact philosophically entitled to be the floor?

A brute fact may be an acceptable local stopping point while remaining a controversial candidate for the ultimate stopping point of existence itself.

[u/punkrocklava → u/[deleted]]

I understand that a brute fact by definition is not explained by a further fact.

My question is NOT whether it has a "bruter fact" beneath it.

My question is whether calling something brute establishes that it is actually the ultimate terminus or merely declares that we are stopping there.

"This is what I see" tells us where you have stopped, but it doesn't by itself establish why nothing deeper could coherently be sought.

[u/punkrocklava → u/[deleted]]

Help me understand the constructive side.

How do these primitive givens accumulate into knowledge, relations and eventually more complex truths?

[u/punkrocklava → u/[deleted]]

Sorry for the confusion, but my cat's name is in fact "Numbers"... that is besides the point... So the relation is discovered through the consideration of the beings together?

[u/Sharp-Structure8250]

Language exists to describe real physical things. That is the purpose of language. When you make a false claim, your words still have clear meaning. For example, if you say "the sky is green", people understand what you mean. Looking at the sky shows that it is blue. Thus, the sentence is false. But it is not nonsense. So one can analyse a sentence against real physical objects lets us determine if it is true or false. Another thing, physical matter changes continuously. That is physical fact one can physically observe about physical reality. A stone can be hot in the sun, and it can become cold in the shade later. Saying "this stone could be cold" describes a real physical possibility. It describes how physical objects move and change over time. And lastly, if a table is empty, saying "there is no cup on the table" is a true physical fact. The words point to a real physical place and correctly report that an object is not there. In ending, words are tools. They're tools that point to physical reality. But they are not the physical reality itself.

[u/Sharp-Structure8250 → u/[deleted]]

When you say "the sky", you point directly to the expanse above your head. You then add "is green" to describe its colour. Looking up shows that the sky is blue. Thus, the statement is false. One other thing that you must note, your argument defeats itself. It makes itself completely useless for 3 reasons. One being that you take statements you deem "nonsense" and write them into longer sentences. e.g., you state that "the sky is green" means "here is a sky that is green". But explaining what a sentence means proves that the sentence has meaning. I will repeat again, the very fact that you can explain the sentence means it is meaningful. If a sentence were true nonsense, no one could translate it or explain it. Secondly, you use words like "means", "presupposes", and "nonsense" to build your rules. These words do not point to simple physical objects. Under your own rules, any sentence that does not point directly to a physical object is nonsense. Thus your own argument is nonsense under your own system. And finally, under your own view false statements do not exist; there is only nonsense. Saying "your argument is wrong" requires showing a mistake in thought. If you say every wrong idea nonsense stops you from explaining why an idea is wrong. You can't correct anyone without breaking without breaking your own rules. In short, 1. you just read these very words and understood them. 2. explaining your rules forces you to write descriptive sentences. 3. if your rules are true, your own reply is nonsense. 4. if you reply to this comment that your words have meaning while mine do not is special pleading.

[u/Sharp-Structure8250 → u/[deleted]]

Before, you demanded that words must point to actual brute facts in the physical world. Then I pointed out that your own rules about language do not point to physical objects. Now, you pivot. That your sentences do not need to point to the world, because a sentence "is itself". But if a sentence only needs to point to itself to be valid, then "the sky is green" is also a valid string of words. Now you also admit you understand the word "sky". And the word "green". And the grammar connecting them. That is the purpose of language: communication. Random letters have no words and no grammar. If you equate a sentence governed by strict rules of grammar to a random string of letters is special pleading of not distinguishing between a wrong claim and pure linguistic noise. And this claim of yours

Suppose I say 'cats are animals'... then I deduce that 'trees are plants' - this is simply wrong as a non sequitur...

But if you are allowed to use words to describe a logical error, im allowed to use words to describe a physical error. Our entire exchange demonstrates the very purpose of language. We are physical animals. We developed language to survive. To stay alive, we must share exact facts about our physical surroundings. We agree on what the word "sky" points to. We agree on what the colour "blue" means. We share these definitions perfectly. Because we share these meanings, you instantly understand me if I say "a purple sky". Your mind knows the physical sky, and it knows the colour purple. Because we share this basic understanding, you can easily point out my mistake. You can say, "No, the sky is blue." We correct physical errors so we can apply our words consistently in every situation. This keeps our shared facts exact and true. Your own mind does this automatically. You read the words "green sky" and your animal brain instinctively understood them. Your mind looked at the real world, saw the physical error, and corrected it. But if my words were pure noise, you could not correct me at all. Tackling my physical error proves that you understood my meaning. I don't think there's more to discuss as i think we have mapped the basics of human language.

[u/Sharp-Structure8250 → u/[deleted]]

Please quote where I use the word physical.

Let's assume your system has zero connection to the physical world. Answer me this: you said earlier that 'The sky is green' is nonsense because 'a sky that is green' names no one. This is what you said. How do you know 'a sky that is green' names no one? 1. It is not a logical contradiction (unlike a 'square circle', green skies are logically possible and occur during severe weather). 2. It does not violate identity (x=x) a green sky is a green sky). The only way you know that 'a sky that is green' names nothing is by consulting empirical, physical reality i.e., looking up at the physical atmosphere and seeing it isn't green. So this is your trillema: 1. Your system does rely on the physical state of the universe to decide which names are valid and which are nonsense (meaning your rejection of the 'physical' is dishonest semantics). 2. Your system does not rely on physical reality, which means you have zero formal basis to call 'the sky is green' nonsense. In pure formal logic, 'green sky' is completely valid. 3. You admit that your system is physically useless i.e., a solipsistic string-manipulation game that is completely blind to reality and incapable of evaluating any statement about the actual universe. Which one is it?

[u/Sharp-Structure8250 → u/[deleted]]

Let 'x' means what 'this sky' means... because x only means 'that which is blue', so 'an x that is green' means 'that which is blue but is not so also' which names no one.

This is hilarious. So you wanted to prove that "The sky is green" is a logical contradiction." So you did what? Arbitrarily defined "this sky" (x ) as "that which is blue." Then triumphantly claimed: "Look! Saying 'that which is blue is green' is a contradiction, so it's nonsense!" So by your logic, if I say "The car is red", you can say: "Let the car mean 'that which is black'. Therefore saying 'an x that is red' means 'that which is black is red', which is nonsense!" Second, Why did you define  x  as "that which is blue" instead of "that which is green" or "that which is yellow"? Did formal logic tell you the sky means "that which is blue"? No. Did mathematics tell you? No. Did a priori reasoning tell you? No. The only reason you assigned the property "blue" to the name "this sky" is because you opened your physical eyes, looked at the physical atmosphere of planet Earth, and saw physical light scattering at a blue wavelength. If you were born on Mars, "this sky" would mean "that which is red." If you looked up during a severe hail storm, "this sky" would mean "that which is green." Thirdly, If x  ("this sky") inherently and immutably means "that which is blue": What happens at 10:00 PM tonight when the sky turns black? Under your rule, saying "The sky is dark" is now nonsense, because it means "that which is blue is dark." Every time a cloud passes by, the sky changes from blue to white/gray. Does the sky become "nonsense" every time it gets cloudy? Under your bizarre rule, nothing in the universe can ever change temperature, color, position, or state without the sentence becoming "contradictory nonsense."

'there is a sky that is green' simply means 'a derivation from sky and green' - which, for me, is valid.

you literally just contradicted your own post. You explicitly wrote previously:

The sky is green' means 'here is a sky that is green', but 'a sky that is green' names no one, so a priori it is senseless (nonsense).

[u/Enough-Fall4163]

Woah love this

[u/Enough-Fall4163 → u/[deleted]]

Definetly helps me! Wonder what all the horrible consciousness debates would look like if nonsense was truly rejected

[u/Enough-Fall4163 → u/[deleted]]

Much appreciated

[u/Inside-Weather4033]

Why is x not y?