I'd say philosophers are interested in how thought comes to think in terms of mind, language and world. (Rather than assuming these terms appear "fully formed").

Also I think its unhelpful to distinguish a communicative mode from cognition itself.

I'd say philosophers are interested in how thought comes to think in terms of mind, language and world. (Rather than assuming these terms appear "fully formed").

Also I think its unhelpful to distinguish a communicative mode from cognition itself.

What is it for “thought coming to think in terms of mind, language and world fully formed”? And how does that differ from “thought coming to think in terms of mind, language and world NOT fully formed”?

In terms of normalised constructions, as opposed to transcendentals.

In terms of normalised constructions, as opposed to transcendentals.

Some examples of “thought coming to think in terms of normalized constructions about mind, language, and world”? And of “thought coming to think in terms of transcendental constructions about mind, language, and world”?

Mind, language and world ARE examples of normalized construction. They are not transcendental.

Mind, language and world ARE examples of normalized construction. They are not transcendental.

You say: philosophers are interested in how thought comes to think in terms of mind, language and world NOT fully formed

I say: What is it for “thought coming to think in terms of mind, language and world NOT fully formed”?

You say: In terms of normalised constructions

I say: What are some examples of “thought coming to think in terms of normalized constructions about mind, language, and world?”

You say: Mind, language and world ARE examples of normalized construction.

In summary:

For thought to think in terms of mind, language and world not fully formed IS FOR thought to think about mind, language, and world in terms of normalized constructions.

I ask: What are some examples of thought coming to think in terms of normalized constructions about mind, language, and world?

You say: Mind, language, and world are examples of normalized constructions.

One: This doesn’t answer my question. I didn’t ask: What are some examples of normalized constructions? I asked: What are some examples of thought coming to think in terms of normalized constructions about mind, language, and world?

Two: You’re reasoning in a circle.

I ask you what it is to think in terms of X not fully formed. I asked you this because I DON’T KNOW WHAT IT IS FOR X TO NOT BE FULLY FORMED. You say: To think in terms of X not fully formed is to think about X in terms of normalized constructions. What you’ve done is substituted one vague expression for another: “not fully formed” for “normalized construction”. Then I ask you: What are some examples of thinking about X in terms of normalized constructions? Because I DON’T KNOW WHAT NORMALIZED CONSTRUCTIONS ARE. You explain to me what normalized constructions are by telling me that X is an example of a normalized construction. That doesn’t tell me what a normalized construction is. What I want to know is what a normalized construction is. If I say to you: “We think about chairs in terms of zyxwvut.” And you don’t know what zyxwvut is, but you have some knowledge about what chairs are, and you ask me: “What is to think about chairs in terms of zyxwvut?”. And I answer: “Chairs are examples of zyxwvut”. I haven’t answered your question, and I haven’t told you anything about what a zyxwvut is.

So, what's a normalized construction? What makes it be the case that mind, language, and world are examples of it, as opposed to not being examples of it?

Hey!

I might be wrong, but I think no one engaged here with Aristotle idea that the ultimate goal of human existence lies in happiness. Now we might go into defining what happiness beyond Aristotle's framework (the cultivation of virtue as the Mean etc). I recently watched this fascinating discussion on the topic of happiness and I thought it might contributre to the debate!

http://iai.tv/video/h...

I think it is particularly relevant in relation to recent proposals to measure individual happiness as an alternative to dominating socio-economic measures like the GDP. What's your opinion on the subject?

Emily