back to the beginning: the limitations of language

[iambiguous]

Metamodernism: The Future of Theory by Jason Storm
John Best tries to move beyond postmodernism.

In the book’s second part Storm explains what he calls ‘Process Social Ontology’. Social ontology is concerned with the reality of social groups, especially in their apparent ability to act with agency in the creation of concepts which are sometimes external to them, such as the concept ‘money’, and sometimes internally self-referential, such as ‘gender’.

Social ontology?

Or, instead, are social interactions about as far removed from ontology as they are from teleology? In other words, money and gender given what particular historical and cultural context? Is there a way [philosophically or otherwise…modern, postmodern, metamodern or otherwise] to encompass how all rational men and women are obligated to think about them, feel about them? Embrace them in their social interactions with others?

And then, given a particular set of circumstances in which modern, postmodern and metamodern proponents might come into conflict, what on Earth does this…

One of social ontology’s goals is determining which, if any, of these concepts are really ‘natural kinds’ – types of things obviously definable in terms of static and unchangeable properties. However, such a search may lead to thinking of natural kinds as possessing an essence. Thinking in terms of essences enables one to generalize from one member of a natural kind to all of its members. This is in fact one of the tenets of substance ontology.

…mean? Whose goals in regard to what situation? And what is able to be described as essentially true about it? As opposed to conflicting personal opinions.

On the other hand this…

Storm accepts the reality of social groups and their group agency, but rejects essentialism. Instead he turns his attention to process ontology – the idea that all that exists is dynamic and continuously changing.

…seems entirely reasonable to me. Only in order to make it clearer we would need to take it out into the world of actual human interactions. Why in regard to any particular moral conflict are or are not essential, objective, universal value judgments beyond the reach of modernists, postmodernists and metamodernists.

And, given a No God world, it is my own rooted existentially in dasein personal opinion that they are.

[iambiguous]

Metamodernism: The Future of Theory by Jason Storm
John Best tries to move beyond postmodernism.

Reconstructing Knowledge

What is the nature of the knowledge that a scientist might create?

Okay, but when scientists grapple with reconfiguring theory into practice, they are generally grappling with it within the parameters of the either/or world. So, through experimentation [re the scientific method], verification and falsification are often considerably more applicable when it comes to figuring out what is in fact true. In fact, true for all of us. That’s why I suspect there are not a whole lot of postmodernists and metamodernists in the scientific community. Other than when science goes all the way out to the very end of the metaphysical branch in grappling with the Big Questions.

Knowledge, or specifically our confidence in our ability to create and use it, was perhaps the chief casualty when the linguistic turn arose in Anglophone philosophy. In Part III, ‘Hylosemiotics’ (really one chapter, but the longest in the book), Storm makes contact with the implications of the linguistic turn. Surprisingly, he does not repudiate it. Instead, he acknowledges the skepticism the linguistic turn raised about the gap between the world either as it is or as it might be, and human representation of the world.

Anglophone philosophy? Google it and you get this:

[b]analytic philosophy n.

1. Any of various philosophical methodologies holding that clear and precise definition and argumentation are vital to productive philosophical inquiry.
2. A philosophical school of the 20th century predominant in the United States and Great Britain whose central concerns are the nature of logic, concepts, and language. Leading practitioners have included Bertrand Russell, George Edward Moore, Rudolf Carnap, and Ludwig Wittgenstein.[/b]

So, in regard to postmodern and metamodern philosophy, how much of this is really applicable? From my frame of mind, the postmodern thinkers seem obsessed with the limitations of language. With deconstructing it. But for me, such limitations and deconstructions are applicable only in regard to moral and political value judgments. How is either school of thought pertinent to the laws of nature, to mathematics, to the physical world around us, to the rules of logic?

[iambiguous]

Modernism vs. Postmodernism
at The Living Philosophy website

Well into the 21st century, the trenches of the so-called culture war are drawn by the tension of Modernism vs Postmodernism. These two worldviews — as radically different as the Medieval and the Modern — still have much of an overlap.

Over and again, however, from my own frame of mind, we have to recognize first and foremost that any “radical differences” that there are here, they revolve almost entirely around human interactions in the is/ought world. Where is the equivalent in the either/or world? Postmodern physics or chemistry or mathematics or logic?

Up next: The postmodern weather report…"partly not partly sunny today, then shifting dramatically to partly not partly cloudy tonight. Or the postmodern analysis of the “big game” that day?

“Postmodernity definitely presents itself as Antimodernity. This statement describes an emotional current of our times which has penetrated all spheres of intellectual life. It has placed on the agenda theories of post-enlightenment, postmodernity, even of posthistory." Jurgen Habermas, Modernity vs. Postmodernity (1981).

Ever and always, this revolves not as much around what different people believe when distinguishing modern from postmodern thinking, but what, given a particular set of circumstances, they can demonstrate in turn that all rational men and women are obligated to believe about it as well.

And how is this not almost always in regard to our moral and political and spiritual value judgments? The part where, in regard to everything from sexuality and education policy to matters of life and death itself, we deconstruct their dogmas and they deconstruct ours.

And no doubt about it…

Either in terms of ends or means, moral nihilism can beget amoral sociopaths. Or the equally amoral “show me the money” billionaires who run the world.

[iambiguous]

Modernism vs. Postmodernism
at The Living Philosophy website

Modernism

The word Modern is a nebulous term that has been used to refer to the contemporary day and age since the 6th century AD. But in the past few decades, a particular time period has come to be identified as Modernity.

Cue Woke Modernism? And all of the many adherents. Especially those at either end of the ideological spectrum…the extremists who are particularly fierce in equating being modern with being…civilized? enlightened?

The dates of this cultural phase vary with some calling everything after the Middle Ages Modernity; others divide the modern era into three phases:

Early Modernity: corresponding to the French Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution;
Classical Modernity: corresponding to the Long 19th Century; and
Late Modernity: which ended somewhere between 1968 and 1989.

Wherever one prefers to draw the line here, the bottom line of course is capitalism. Historically, it is a political economy that turned almost everything on its head. Me, myself and I, far more than we, small government far more than big government, Protestants far more than Catholics, wage slaves far more then literal bondage.

For our purposes here the exact dates do not matter because we’re not really talking about a historical period. Following Foucault’s analysis in his essay What is Enlightenment? we will be treating modernity more “as an attitude than as a period of history.”

For my purposes here, however, we’ll still need a context. Given a set of circumstances most here will be familiar with, what behaviors would be deemed enlightened? Or civilized? Or modern? Then a postmodern/metamodern reaction to that. Then the part where the “serious philosophers” among us attempt to encompass the most technically sound assessment of those behaviors. In other words, in order to pin down at the very least the theoretically correct grasp of our moral obligations.

And this attitude is most salient in the period known as the Long 19th Century which spanned from the French Revolution in 1789 to the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. This was the time when Modernity had come into its fullness and was the dominant force in the culture.

Again, cue capitalism. And, in particular, the Industrial Revolution. Then crony capitalism and the Deep State. Then the part where the postmodernists among us started in on deconstructing everything.

Right. Tell that to those who own and operate the global economy.

[iambiguous]

Modernism vs. Postmodernism
at The Living Philosophy website

Modernism

For our purposes here the exact dates do not matter because we’re not really talking about a historical period. Following Foucault’s analysis in his essay What is Enlightenment? we will be treating modernity more “as an attitude than as a period of history.”

And this attitude is most salient in the period known as the Long 19th Century which spanned from the French Revolution in 1789 to the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. This was the time when Modernity had come into its fullness and was the dominant force in the culture.

And hardly coincidental that this basically overlaps historically with the spread of capitalism around the globe and the industrial revolution. The modern industrial nations wobbling back and forth between the rugged individual and the welfare state. And now it seems with the deeply entrenched reality of the global economy, the rest hardly even matters.

Foucault identifies a number of traits of Modernity including:

a questioning or rejection of tradition;
the prioritising of individualism, freedom and formal equality;
faith in inevitable social, scientific and technological progress,
a movement from feudalism toward capitalism and the market economy,
industrialization and urbanization,
secularization and,
the development of the nation-state, representative democracy and public education

Now all we need is a context. Then point by point we can elaborate on what Foucault’s traits/attributes above mean to us. Subjectively, existentially. And, of course, those among us who equate enlightenment with their own objectivist dogmas can explain how they came to grasp this…philosophically?

Then point by point, context by context, the postmodernists among us can deconstruct these arguments one by one. Finally pinning down the parts that are immune to deconstruction and are actually applicable to all of us.

[iambiguous]

Modernism vs. Postmodernism
at The Living Philosophy website

The groundwork for Modernity was laid by the philosophers of the French Enlightenment who influenced the Founding Fathers of the US and the rebels of the French Revolution. The ideals of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ in the US and ‘liberty, equality and fraternity’ in France were the clarion call of Modernity.

The groundwork being capitalism. The historical evolution of the market economy and a burgeoning world trade. Everything changed. Not the least with God and religion. Gradually over time Christianity had to make its own adjustments…from “the dark ages” to “the enlightenment”. From an other-worldly Catholicism to a very much this [and for the amoral entrepreneurs] only this world where prosperity was deemed to be a sign of God’s approval. Indeed, for some denominations, the church basically was just a business.

Man was liberated from his oppressors. The monarchies and aristocracies were cast aside, church and state were separated; Modernity was to be an age of Reason.

Cue the objectivists:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p … ideologies
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s … philosophy

Reason, indeed. Pick one from the links above. Or start a new one.

The worldview of Modernism was characterised by an extravagant optimism and confidence in its own power. Reason was the guiding principle of the age and the novelty of it was intoxicating. With it came a naivete and optimism about the inevitability of Progress in all spheres of life.

And, sure enough, within the realm of science and in regard to interactions in the either/or world, reason has brought into existence inventions and technologies and experiences that most of us couldn’t explain if our lives depended on it. The modern world “for all practical purposes” just is what it is.

But then there is the profound lack of Progress in those realms of life that revolve around moral and political and religious conflicts. And, really, how might the modernists and the postmodernists be distinguished here?

[iambiguous]

Modernism vs. Postmodernism
at The Living Philosophy website

This confidence [see above] rose to a peak at the end of the 19th and the start of the 20th century. During this time, new technologies that revolutionised life were emerging every year. In the space of a few decades, dozens of world-altering inventions appeared on the scene. For the first time we had bikes, planes and cars, lightbulbs, telephones and the radio. Diseases that once wiped-out entire swaths of the population were now being eradicated.

Okay, so ask yourself this: how is modernism differentiated from postmodernism in regard to the extraordinary progress made here? How relevant is it at all in regard scientific advancement, new technologies, new inventions, new manufacturing and engineering feats?

Perhaps someday in regard to such things as the quantum world, deontology, determinism, the Big Questions, the existence of God, etc., there will be such distinctions made. Or, sure, maybe they are already making them, and it hasn’t gotten around to me.

Science was making rapid leaps forward and it seemed that it was a mere matter of tying up loose ends. In the Long 19th Century the Laws of Thermodynamics were formulated, the Periodic Table was created, and Einstein published his revolutionary papers on relativity.

And, clearly, one of the main reasons scientific progress can be made is that there is always a right answer in the either/or world. Physicists and chemists and biologists etc., really do have to go all the way out to the end of their respective limbs before squabbles popped up in attempting to grasp an actual TOE…the TOE?

One that allows for a definitive understanding of our flesh and blood interactions in turn?

Even in philosophy there was a fervent excitement about the new study of language and logic. In one of the most typical expressions of Modernism’s self-confidence Ludwig Wittgenstein claimed in 1922 to have dissolved all the problems of philosophy writing that

“The problems are dissolved in the actual sense of the word — like a lump of sugar in water.”

Of course, we don’t speak of the “early Wittgenstein” and the “late Wittgenstein” for nothing.

And for those who are sticking with the self-confidence expressed above in regard to language and logic, let’s note a set of circumstances, and explore just how far language and logic can go in regard to expressing confidence in the face of conflicting goods.

[iambiguous]

Modernism vs. Postmodernism
at The Living Philosophy website

On the social and cultural front it was the age of Democracy when across the world women were getting the vote and slavery was being banned.

Back again to the historical consequences of capitalism. Democracy because that is more suited to a market economy. That plus the deep state of course. The inherent nature of political economy. The end of chattel slavery because wage slaves get the job done in turn and once they punch out they’re on their own.

But it was also what Matei Călinescu described as “the age of ideology” when people like Marx and Freud tried to give exhaustive accounts of human life. It was the age of Communism, Anarchism and Fascism which each had a grand totalising narrative that proposed a revolution in the ways society is arranged.

And what of the 21st Century? The century of “lifestyles”? The century where one or another rendition of pop culture and mindless consumption [made in the USA] spreads around the globe and those who own and operate the global economy are themselves more or less partial to autocracy? Will America follow Russia and China down the road to a flat-out state capitalist ruling class?

Modernism had big dreams. It was cresting the wave of progress and, with the inevitable success of that wave, anything seemed possible. It was a time of audacious dreaming.

In other words, the “age of ideology”. The belief that, “okay, God is dead! So what, who needs Him?!”

Instead, you pick one of these:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p … ideologies
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s … philosophy

Or, again, you eschew politics altogether and let your life revolve around all of the things that money can buy.

[iambiguous]

Modernism vs. Postmodernism
at The Living Philosophy website

Postmodernism

By the second half of the 20th century, it became obvious that the vision was a fantasy and with that the conflict of Modernism vs Postmodernism began to gain cultural prominence.

As I noted on another thread…

Historically, existentialism as a philosophy is, in my view, derived from Nietzsche’s conjecture that “God is dead” and as a result of contemplating “what is to be done?” in the wake of the First World War, the Great Depression, the Second World war and then the reality of living at time where [re the Cuban Missile Crisis] a nuclear holocaust was seemingly eminent.

First, Nietzsche drew our attention [philosophically, morally, politically etc.] to the consequences of a No God world. And then the 20th Century made it just as abundantly clear what the consequences of ideology would be. What then were the odds that a new Ism would come into existence?

Instead, we basically have what’s left of the old Isms. And the world seems increasingly more intent on dividing itself up between the competing amoral “show me the money” autocracies – Putin, Xi, Trump.

As for the postmodernists…look around you. Aside from the academic community, what impact have they made on the world we live in? These folks – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_philosophy – next to the folks on Wall Street and their cronies in Washington? Postmodernism next to the juggernauts that are pop culture and mindless consumption and reality TV?

The promises of liberty equality and fraternity, of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness began to appear increasingly hollow with every year. The brutality of the French in Algeria was hardly an embodiment of liberty, equality or fraternity. The soldiers addicted to heroin in Vietnam were far from the Jeffersonian life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The millions of Vietnamese who even today suffer the downstream effects of the American Agent Orange would undoubtedly agree.

Of course, that’s all predicated on one particular set of political prejudices. There are others. Many, many others. Just as there are, in turn, countless conflicting assessments of what “liberty, equality and fraternity” themselves mean. It’s just that most postmodernists here are likely to argue that this is basically the natural order of things. There is no one size fits all ideological agenda that one or another rendition of “globalism” can sustain into the best of all possible worlds.

But this doesn’t make the either/or world any more susceptible to “anything goes”. The premodern, the modern and whatever some construe the postmodern world to be are all intertwined in the same laws of nature.

Women had been given the vote but were still ostracised from the workplace and far from true autonomy. The African-American community may have been technically freed from slavery but to call them even second-class citizens in 1950s and 60s America would have been laughable.

As the second half of the twenty-century progressed, it became obvious that the equality and liberty that had been promised in Modernism’s wave of revolutions against the old powers was for many, a horizon that drew no closer.

Again, modernism often starts from the assumption that in regard to conflicting goods of this sort it is possible [philosophically or otherwise] to “think up” – to define and to deduce – the most rational and virtuous of human behaviors…while for most postmodernists, all of that becomes hopelessly subjective…readily open to “deconstruction” and the like.

[iambiguous]

Modernism vs. Postmodernism
at The Living Philosophy website

Dr King: "When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men – yes, black men as well as white men – would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked insufficient funds.

Woke, right? Well, at least for these guys: knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora

The balance of power had shifted but the hands that held it fitted the same demographic profile. But now instead of monarchs and aristocrats, there were tycoons and bankers.

Cue [among others] Marx and Engels. Premodern, modern, postmodern. There has almost always been one of another rendition of the ruling class. It’s not like those on Wall Street and their political cronies in Washington here in America read Adorno, Lacan, Foucaut, Derrida etc., and think to themselves, “uh, oh…what now?”

Money doesn’t talk these days, it absolutely bellows. And for an increasingly larger and larger portion of the global population, it’s the new religion. And, to the best of my knowledge, there’s no such thing as a postmodern bank account.

Modernism had taken great leaps forward. But it was not enough. Cynicism began to set in.

Indeed, as The Clash suggested in The Magnificent Seven, “Plato the Greek or Rin Tin Tin…who’s more famous to the billion millions?”

Today the billion millions are thoroughly engrossed in, among other things, the Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce romance. A pop star and football player!

In fact, how does my own cynicism stack up against the reality of, say, pop culture?

The dream of Modernism was dead. And in its wake Postmodernism emerged. This attitude of Postmodernity was everything that Modernity wasn’t. Bye bye to the grand narratives, to the naivete and optimism, to utopian dreams of happy ever after and the glorifying of science.

Trust me:

Postmodernists, like all the rest of us, are, from the cradle to the grave, embedded in the either/or world. Birth, school, work, death. Subsistence: food, water, shelter. Bills to pay, relationships to sustain, responsibilities to bear. It’s just that, like me, they are considerably less inclined to pin down the is/ought world…objectively?

And any number of men and women are still convinced that their own “grand narrative” is the One True Path to Enlightenment.

Objectivists, let’s call them.

[iambiguous]

Pictures and Nonsense
Mark Jago looks at Wittgenstein’s first theory of language, in the Tractatus. One of the conclusions of this theory is that the theory in the Tractatus is nonsense…

In itself, this doesn’t tell us all that much. Pictures can have many purposes – just think of the differences between hieroglyphics and modern artworks.

With artworks, of course, beauty is often said to be in the eye or the mind of the beholder. On the other hand, there are any number of artists who have few qualms about including their political convictions in the works they produce. Something might be created such that technically, artistically it is a great work of art. But it depicts human interactions that champion values you find appalling. Or the art is completely apolitical but the artist who created it embraces moral and political convictions that you detest.

Therefore it is helpful to consider a very basic type of picture, such as a diagram I might draw to show a friend the way to my house. I do not have to sketch every detail of the route my friend should take, such as what the view will look like along the way. Rather, I need to show my friend where to turn, and perhaps mark some prominent landmarks along the route.

An “either/or” transaction. The sketch is either successful in bringing you to another’s house or it isn’t. But suppose you get there only to find out the house is occupied by a hardcore Nazi or Communist. Someone interested in recruiting others to their own extremist views.

Then this part…

Suppose that my diagram indicates that my friend should take the second right after the lights. Of course, the situation that the diagram presents to my friend need not be true to the facts; my diagram might be part of a practical joke on her, in which I send her to someone else’s house. In constructing a picture such as this, I am not constrained by the actual facts. Although my house is on the second road on the right, I am perfectly able to draw a diagram in which the house is pictured on the second road on the left.

Okay, but in the end, the picture drawn either accomplished what you wanted it to accomplish, or it did not. Where the moral and political conflagrations come into play, however, revolves around why you were invited in the first place. What do those there want from you, expect from you, command of you?

[iambiguous]

"As President Trump seeks to purge the federal government of “woke” initiatives, agencies have flagged hundreds of words to limit or avoid, according to a compilation of government documents.

The terms [below] appeared in government memos, in official and unofficial agency guidance and in other documents viewed by The New York Times. Some ordered the removal of these words from public-facing websites, or ordered the elimination of other materials (including school curricula) in which they might be included." nyt

accessible
activism
activists
advocacy
advocate
advocates
affirming care
all-inclusive
allyship
anti-racism
antiracist
assigned at birth
assigned female at birth
assigned male at birth
at risk
barrier
barriers
belong
bias
biased
biased toward
biases
biases towards
biologically female
biologically male
BIPOC
Black
breastfeed + people
breastfeed + person
chestfeed + people
chestfeed + person
clean energy
climate crisis
climate science
commercial sex worker
community diversity
community equity
confirmation bias
cultural competence
cultural differences
cultural heritage
cultural sensitivity
culturally appropriate
culturally responsive
DEI
DEIA
DEIAB
DEIJ
disabilities
disability
discriminated
discrimination
discriminatory
disparity
diverse
diverse backgrounds
diverse communities
diverse community
diverse group
diverse groups
diversified
diversify
diversifying
diversity
enhance the diversity
enhancing diversity
environmental quality
equal opportunity
equality
equitable
equitableness
equity
ethnicity
excluded
exclusion
expression
female
females
feminism
fostering inclusivity
GBV
gender
gender based
gender based violence
gender diversity
gender identity
gender ideology
gender-affirming care
genders
Gulf of Mexico
hate speech
health disparity
health equity
hispanic minority
historically
identity
immigrants
implicit bias
implicit biases
inclusion
inclusive
inclusive leadership
inclusiveness
inclusivity
increase diversity
increase the diversity
indigenous community
inequalities
inequality
inequitable
inequities
inequity
injustice
institutional
intersectional
intersectionality
key groups
key people
key populations
Latinx
LGBT
LGBTQ
marginalize
marginalized
men who have sex with men
mental health
minorities
minority
most risk
MSM
multicultural
Mx
Native American
non-binary
nonbinary
oppression
oppressive
orientation
people + uterus
people-centered care
person-centered
person-centered care
polarization
political
pollution
pregnant people
pregnant person
pregnant persons
prejudice
privilege
privileges
promote diversity
promoting diversity
pronoun
pronouns
prostitute
race
race and ethnicity
racial
racial diversity
racial identity
racial inequality
racial justice
racially
racism
segregation
sense of belonging
sex
sexual preferences
sexuality
social justice
sociocultural
socioeconomic
status
stereotype
stereotypes
systemic
systemically
they/them
trans
transgender
transsexual
trauma
traumatic
tribal
unconscious bias
underappreciated
underprivileged
underrepresentation
underrepresented
underserved
undervalued
victim
victims
vulnerable populations
women
women and underrepresented

First, of course: can you fucking believe this?! Secondly, how is this not basically just another rendition of woke? Trump and his ilk seemingly loathe these words, so they set out to “wake people up” in order that they can loathe them too. Thirdly, I expect all Trump supporters here to refrain from using them other than in a disparaging manner.

Oh, and don’t just limit using them, grow a pair and utterly avoid using them altogether.

[iambiguous]

Pictures and Nonsense
Mark Jago looks at Wittgenstein’s first theory of language, in the Tractatus. One of the conclusions of this theory is that the theory in the Tractatus is nonsense…

Wittgenstein is keen to emphasize that what a picture means is independent of whether it is a truthful representation or not. But if a diagram can be misleading or downright false, so that it does not picture the facts, what does it picture? Wittgenstein says that what a diagram or picture represents exists in logical space.

Logical space in a “world of words”? Or is someone who subscribes to the point above able to describe how it is applicable to their own life.

One way to understand this is to see that the way the world has turned out is not the only way that it could have turned out. Had things turned out differently, my house could have been on the second left, even though it is actually on the second right. So a picture represents something that is the case, or alternatively, could have been the case had the world turned out differently.

Then the part whereby, had things been different in your life, you might actually be defending what you now reject. In fact, some will insist that contingency, chance and change are effectively blunted given their very own Intrinsic Self. Again, in my view, it is easily the most convenient and self-serving moral philosophy. You “just know” what is right or wrong, good or bad, true or false. And since no one else is you, what could they possible know about your own assessment and conclusion.

What is it that makes the arrangement of lines on my diagram a picture, whereas a scribble produced at random (say, by a crab crawling around in the sand) is not counted as a picture? According to Wittgenstein, it is that the lines in the diagram are related together in a way that mimics the way the things they correspond to are related. For example my diagram has symbols for roads and houses, which if true, are arranged in a way which mimics their arrangement in reality.

So, how do the pictures you subscribe to mimic “their arrangement in reality”? And roads and houses are either correctly pictured or they are not. I’m far more interested myself in how men and women picture the world around them morally and politically and spiritually.

[iambiguous]

Pictures and Nonsense
Mark Jago looks at Wittgenstein’s first theory of language, in the Tractatus. One of the conclusions of this theory is that the theory in the Tractatus is nonsense…

Wittgenstein’s theory of language holds that sentences work like pictures: their purpose is also to picture possible situations.

Then the gap between pictures depicting what is in fact true for all of us empirically/experientially and the seeming futility of attempting to picture the world of normative interactions – morally, politically – in the same way.

Instead, we live in a world where literally hundreds of different religious denominations and/or political parties and/or ideological dogmas are all clamoring to insist the picture they paint of the world need be as far as anyone goes. Then the part where some objectivists will note those who can never be “one of us”. The wrong skin color, for example, or the wrong sexual orientation.

It must be pointed out that Wittgenstein is not concerned with mental pictures, ie the images we conjure up in our minds. The thesis is not that the meaning of a sentence is what we picture in our minds when we hear or think the sentence. That was the theory of language advocated by John Locke, the 17th century empiricist philosopher. Rather, Wittgenstein is concerned with a more abstract notion of a picture, as something that either agrees or disagrees with any way the world might have been, and which says, this is the way things actually are.

Okay, for those who believe they do understand the distinction being here, please note how it is embodied in your day-to-day interactions with other.

I can close my eyes and picture any number of my own interactions…past and present. Interactions that involve behaviors able to be pictured. It just all more or less collapses [for those of my inclination] in regard to value judgments.

You can picture a day in the life of Elon Trump such that the pictures are able to illustrate the actual things that they do. But if the exchange shifts to discussions and debates regarding the rationality/morality of the policies that they are pursuing?

How would that be most effectively pictured?

[iambiguous]

Pictures and Nonsense
Mark Jago looks at Wittgenstein’s first theory of language, in the Tractatus. One of the conclusions of this theory is that the theory in the Tractatus is nonsense…

Logical Analysis

On the other hand, are there or are there not facets of human interactions where logic appears to be considerably more problematic? I focus here on value judgments, but how exactly would a logician encompass the existence of existence itself. Or the existence of God.

Then this part: Is logic “a priori given or a product of language”?

The next element of Wittgenstein’s first theory of language concerns how sentences are built up from simpler sentences (or propositions, as Wittgenstein calls them], meaning a sentence that’s unambiguously either true or false.

On the other hand, in a wholly determined universe as some understand it, everything that is may well turn out to be only that which it ever could have been.

But, surely, it is obvious that logic is considerably more applicable to the either/or world.

Then this part: Logic and rationality - Wikipedia

His idea is that whenever a sentence contains one of the logical connectives ‘not’, ‘and’, ‘or’, or ‘if … then’, we can work out the truth-value of that proposition (i.e. whether it’s true or false) if we know the truth-values of the sentences that make it up. This is seen most easily by giving an example. Suppose I say, “If it isn’t raining, then we will go to the park and have a picnic.” This sentence is made up from the following simpler sentences:

1. It is raining
2. We will go to the park
3. We will have a picnic

Indeed, it either is or is not raining. You either go to the park or you don’t. You either have a picnic there or you don’t.

On the other hand, suppose someone doesn’t want to picnic in the park but would rather go bowling instead. Or suppose someone wants to picnic in the park but the park doesn’t allow people of color there.

Logic here?