Toisaalta Trumpin analysointi epäonnistui, koska ei osattu nähdä minkälaisen ideaalin (tai dystopian) hän puheillaan maalasi. Realistinen tulkintaraami meni harhaan osittain tästä syystä.

Ne ideaalit kuitenkin elää aina jollain tapaa politiikassa, vaikka nykyään lähes aina tukahdetusti.

Minusta tällä on myös se merkitys, että se tuo kysymyksen ideaaleista politiikkaan. Nykyinen politiikka, ja sen analyysitkin, ovat keskittyneitä kapeasti pragmaattisiin kysymyksiin, ja yksittäisiin politiikkatoimenpiteisiin. Tässä kontekstissa Mamdani on oikeastaan aika epäkiinnostava.

We should demand that the pyramids are returned to their rightful owners.

Tai lisätä hyvätuloisten verotusta 30 miljardin edestä. Pakko mikä pakko. Kipeitä leikkauksia jne.

not a general schema for how concepts work. I'm not sure how, in teaching, one could draw attention to different ways in which concepts work, but if it's possible, it would seem like something important.

A classical example is natural harbors. It is a shape in nature (deep enough and protected), but these shapes get their meaning because of the human practice of seafaring. Both aspects together gives us the meaning of the concept of natural harbor. Other concepts have other aspects, so it's

Sounds good to me! Though I'm not in a position to judge because I know next to nothing about biology.

This can be as complex or as simple as one wants, but the important part is *not* to give the impression that it is nature alone giving us these concepts. Equally a mistake would be to say that nature doesn't play a role, but you see less of that.

This is not to say that simplifications are the problem as such, but to my mind there should be even simple ways to give the impression that the relationship between concepts and phenomena are tied to the practice in question, simply by describing what actual researches do with the terms.

It is funny, because as a result, specialized sciences (and biology is not the only one doing this, economics does this as well) kicks the can down the road, and makes philosopher's work a living hell, fighting this kind of naturalistic fallacy.

new house at the end of the street. He was referring to the fact that new practices emerge through out history, and the use of concepts change with them.

BUT, there is a question, is it absolutely necessary to teach kids as if the logic of concepts is that they refer to an objective reality?

the purposes (when there is present one) *is* describing the logic of a concept.

W also realized this means there isn't a generalized form for meaningful language, and language is as varied as the things we do in life. There is also no definite job, because, as he put it, you can always build a

Later he realized, though, that he was wrong. He threw the ladder away alright, but climbed back down before that.

Later he saw that describing logic is fully possible, but that it means describing the use of language. That is, describing the *practical* ways in which you classify species, and

as my effort to make sense of him :)

The ladder thing was there to say that the general form of language is that it makes statements of facts. But as Tractatus itself was a book in logic, not facts, it would be under this view nonsense. So the book was meant to be used as ladder to realize this.

Very interesting, thank you! It also gives me an opportunity to speak about Wittgenstein, since you mentioned him (and I also think it's relevant)! I'm going to try to make sense of him more than his philosophy might permit so take *this*, in turn, not as THE Wittgenstein but

Ideologiakaan ei tällä tavalla ole ajasta ja paikasta riippumaton. Mutta taas, mitä merkitystä sillä on tässä ajassa, niin se on epäselvempää.

puolueen sen hetkistä poliittisia tavoitteita.

Nää on myös mun mielestä aika moniulotteisia. Voin hyvin nähdä, ettei Mamdani tai Sanders olisi tyytyväisiä vielä pohjoismaisen hvv:n kanssa, ja haluaisi sen jälkeen kokonaan työntekijäomisteiset yritykset, kuten kai Palme yritti joskus.

yhteistyötä.

Jos se olis tyhjä kirjain, se olisi varmaan aika helppo sieltä poistaa käytännön syistä, koska se olisi kuin ampuisi itseään jalkaan muuten. Suomen suhteen tilanne SDP:llä saattoi olla eri, ehkä juuri päinvastainen hetken. Eikä sekään silloin ollut merkityksetön, vaikka ei vastannut

Voi olla liian yksioikoista sanoa tän perusteella että Mamdani tai Sanders olisi sosialisteja, mutta ei se tee mun nähdäkseni tuosta merkityksetöntä. Tää aiheuttaa kitkaa paljon, ja tekee sen että joutuvat jatkuvasti kamppailemaan vastavirtaan USA:ssa. Tuskin kannustaa keskustedemareita tekemään