Bob Ross

But you haven't defined what it means to exist: you have just noted that only existent things can undertake action. This doesn't define being at all.

Concepts are more universal than words, because words refer to the concepts. I think that, despite whatever limitations we may have in our language, t...

:up:

You don't think concepts are determinate? How is the concept of a circle not determinate?

I don't see a definition of 'true' anywhere in your response, and am a little confused. What's your definition?

You are presupposing that space and time are only (presumably synthetic) a priori. I accept that the space and time which are our forms of experience ...

I didn’t understand this question: can you re-phrase it? To use a concept, is to deploy it; and to presuppose a concept is to use a concept in a manne...

"To be or not to be" means "should something exist, or should it not?"

I don't think concepts are culturally relative. The words we use to describe them are, and the ones we expound may be a reflection of cultural interes...

Normally, colloquially, knowledge does not refer to absolute truth. When someone says "I know that the distance to my local grocery store is 10 miles"...

There is a valid distinction between conceptual vs. linguistic circularity: the former is circularity in the underlying idea, and the latter is circul...

This doesn’t refer to being at all. If ‘to exist’ is ‘to be the subject of a predicate, then Unicorns exist because “Unicorns are red”. This obviously...

I think your are very close to my meaning, it is just a bit linguistic instead of conceptual--is all. :up:

How do you define 'true' (and NOT 'truth')?

I guess I didn't understand your definition of 'being': can you give it again?

I don't think the concept of PNC is primitive: it is the idea that a proposition cannot be both true and false. However, and what I think you are gett...

I don't think so. For example, try to define what 'true', as a concept and signifier, NOT 'truth', refers to without begging the question. I don't see...

If you would like to end our discussion, then I completely respect that. I am more than willing to continue, but I only want to if you want to—afteral...

The confusion lies in the fact that I am using there term “probability” in a looser, more colloquial sense, than you. If we are talking about “probabi...

:up: I do consider the concept of space and time, in a phenomenal sense, to be primitive. In terms of numbers, I am not sure that they are all primiti...

“word-resistant” isn’t a good way to describe it, as that implies that the qualification of conceptual simplicity is linguistic (as opposed to concept...

That is exactly the issue, and what I was trying to convey to @"Janus".

You didn't define what it means to exist; and that was the whole point. It irrelevant what you call the entirety of reality, or a parcel of reality. I...

Well, you are claiming that the concepts are a priori, and thusly are concepts which our representative faculties, in-themselves, have for the act of ...

Non-sequitur. Firstly, I am NOT referring to linguistic definitions: I am referring to conceptual definitions. Secondly, if you are just noting that a...

I appreciate you re-quoting your definition! So, here’s your definition: The first thing I am going to do, is slash out ‘as a whole’, because I am not...

:brow: If the actor is playing the part of Hamlet, then Hamlet. This is not an example of a valid analysis of 'to be': 'to be or not to be?' ungrammat...

I believe you are giving more of an ontological account of why it is absolutely simple (viz., the categories of the understanding), which, by my light...

:up:

It was the initial request, because we were referring to different things by the word ‘being’. I was meaning in the traditional and common sense of ‘t...

Also, I am not asking for a definition of what the 'totality of existent things' is: I am asking for a definition of the concept of 'to exist'. It alm...

I did read it, and didn't see a definition (e.g., 'existence' is <...>, 'existence' = <...>, etc.). What was it? The closest I see is: Which is the sa...

Philosophim, that's the challenge: can you provide a definition of 'existence' (of 'to exist', 'to be', etc.) which is not circular? So far, you have ...

I see where the confusion lies: you don’t think ‘being’ = ‘existence’. I disagree, but that is despite the point. My challenge needs to be semanticall...

You are confusing absolute knowledge with knowledge. If knowledge is a justified belief that has a high enough probability of being true, then you can...

People who think that something is morally permissible but yet no one should do it, are either (1) confused about what morality is, (2) what they beli...

Philosophim, I know you think you are providing key counter-points to my theory: but you are not at all. You don’t understand the theory completely ye...

Let’s take a different approach, because I think our heads are in totally different spaces; and that’s fine, but we need to converge somewhere if we w...

My definition of value, is Moorean—not subjective. What value is itself, is not something contingent on subjective dispositions: it is to have worth. ...

I have been thinking about how to express my view differently, in light of your currently way of thinking about it, so as to hopefully provide more cl...

Knowledge requires that it is true, and not just a belief. Now, whether or not it is true is probabilistic, so it could turn out that what we think is...

I would suggest reading (in this order): 1. The Gay Science. 2. Twilight of the Idols. 3. Beyond Good and Evil. Then, let me know if you still feel th...

I think we have made progress! (: The reason I don’t start with it, is because I don’t feel the need, when initially explaining the theory, to explain...

With all due respect, there was a lot of straw manning going on in your reply; and I could tell that you responded by way of reacting to each paragrap...

I already noted, and was the first to note, that ‘value’ and ‘worth’ are synonyms: I already answered objection by explaining that valuableness is a p...

Sounds good! Reading through your critiques of my view of valuableness, I get the feeling you may be making the same conflation between “valuableness”...

Great response! However, I don't think we are making any real progress, because we are having ~10 discussions about ~10 different subjects at once (: ...

@"Corvus" (A -> B) -> (~A -> ~B) is false. "A -> B" is not biconditional implication (i.e., IFF): it means that if A is true, then you can infer B is ...

Great discussion! Unfortunately, as I was parsing your response, I have found it to be going in too many directions for my mind to manage properly. So...

That one has a right, is different than whether anyone else recognizes it. A right is innate to a person, if one admits that it applies even if there ...