8 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2017
    1. immediate, and that only by means of it is inner experience--not indeed the consciousness of my own existence, but thedetermination of it in time --possible. Certainly, the representation 'I am', which expresses the consciousness that canaccompany all thought, immediately includes in itself theexistence of a subject; but it does not so include any knowledgeof that subject, and therefore also no empirical knowledge,that is, no experience of it. For this we require, in addition tothe thought of something existing, also intuition, and in thiscase inner intuition, in respect of which, that is, of time, thesubject must be determined. But in order so to determine it,outer objects are quite indispensable; and it therefore followsthat inner experience is itself possible only mediately, andonlythrough outer experience.

      This is a key section that explains how we need a subject "I" in our narratives, yet it has no definite description, knowledge, or experience. It must rely on inuition--time-- to create such experiences and that intuition of time is predicated on the existence of outside objects to allow for time to even occur.

  2. inst-fs-iad-prod.inscloudgate.net inst-fs-iad-prod.inscloudgate.net
  3. Apr 2017
    1. fortio

      "Argumentum a fortiori (pron. /ˈɑː fɔːrtɪˈoʊriː/; Latin: "from a/the stronger [thing]") is a form of argumentation which draws upon existing confidence in a proposition to argue in favor of a second proposition that is held to be implicit in the first."

      thanks wikipedia. however I would love someone to tell me what this means! I kinda get the gist but am not sure how to articulate it in words. maybe this is my own argument to show how thoughts come first before language... hmm the idea that you can think of something but struggle to put it in words... not to toot my own horn but I may have just discovered the key to this whole thing... no i just took a bunch of shots of espresso and am feeling quite cheeky/enjoy this reading over all my other hw i have to do so I'm gonna rant a bit about some train of thought which i think I've already been able to poke multiple holes in, so if you read this whole thing, sorry to waste a bit of your time. I think i need to take a break from the caffeine

    2. There are persuasive empirical reasons suggesting that, although atheory of the content of thought might be able to satisfy the adequacy con-dition in question, it’s unlikely that a theory of the content of language coulddo so. Which is to say that, as between the two, only thoughthascontentstrictly speaking

      so he's going to establish the new criteria or adequacy conditionality to meet a theory of content and will conclude, using empirical evidence which is nice, that only thought can satisfy that criteria while language can't. Therefore because thinking only meets this adequacy and language doesn't, only thought has content, strictly speaking. I think that's right?

    3. I’ll borrow a way of speaking from John Searle and sometimes put this ques-tion as: ‘Is it thoughts or sentences that have ‘content in the first instance’ orthat have ‘underived’ content’?

      oo this reminds me of when we talked about whether thinking is talking to ourselves or not. Interesting to see what Fodor says here, when thinking about it I kind think in images and kind of semi arguments, however I don't articulate the entirety of my thoughts into words (that would be exhausting) so I'd be inclined to say there's a little bit of both or that language is so ingrained in our heads that we instantaneously translate ideas and their impressions (hume definitions) into language

    4. Which comes, first, thoughtor language?

      whether the language is external or originates in our mind/brain first. Seems to be a nice follow up to chomsky's discussion. I like the chicken or the egg reference too