Moliere

Sure. I do, and I've been laying them out -- I haven't been saying "do not discuss" or "have no opinion" or something along those lines. Here we are d...

I feel jealousy. All I've had to wait for are geese and cows.

Focusing here, because this is something I agree with. I invoked the notion of asking because it's basically the golden standard for determining some ...

Yes, I read us as saying similar enough things too.

I don't think so. But, then, I don't think of personal identity like you do. I'm not looking to define these things in order to pass judgment on who c...

Why's that? For practical purposes, I'd say that for almost every part of one's personal identity we don't have to go about proving it to others. Noti...

A thing about hypotheticals -- they aren't real. And when discussing the reality of personal identity I think that hypotheticals of the form which com...

The way I'd put it is that the thing-in-itself is a noumenon, i.e. something that can be thought but cannot be empirically encountered, but noumena is...

No. I'm saying that no one owns a person's identity other than the person whose identity it is. You nor I get to say who Susan or Ryan are. They get t...

If F(65%) then G(65%) F(65%) Therefore, G(65%) So the unweighted possibility space would look like: F| G| F->G T| T| T T| F| F F| T| T F| F| T For any...

I think that this is intentionally left up to whomever is identifying themself -- there is no one way to be a man or a woman, up to and including the ...

You're going to have to spell out what you're thinking, because to me these just look like a handful of unrelated questions.

I took it as a symbol for the dawn of whatever it is that allows us to create and invent tools -- hence the shot shortly thereafter where the ape thro...

Perhaps, with our powers combined, we could come up with something that works for us. Obviously to make these comparisons one has to have an interpret...

I pulled a definition from this pdf claiming to be a post-secondary biology textbook: "mating system whereby one male and one female remain coupled fo...

If by scientific you just mean descriptive of human behavior, then human beings are simply not monogamous. There's nothing to explain because this is ...

I think you're starting from a false notion of patriarch here -- it's a picture of a man with his harem. While that is an example of patriarchy, it's ...

Patriarchy is the enforced social rule of men as the head of the household who makes decisions with respect to household economic arrangements, at lea...

Yeah, true. There's something queer about philosophical theories -- they seem as if they should have transformative implications, but also that people...

In societies that don't have harems, at least (since some societies do have harems, hence the word harem) -- the women will have to agree to patriarch...

I'll voice disagreement, but -- it's irrelevant too because I'm describing an ideal and giving a material reason for said ideal. Since I don't think p...

Ahh, I should have scrolled down! I've never read Mann.

Kafka?

Ahh, OK. For that I'd say the explanation is patriarchy. Men wanted ways to ensure that the children they were responsible for were actually their chi...

I don't think so. We are able to posit ideals that we're unable to live up to. That's a large part of what makes people unhappy, in my estimation -- t...

Orlando?

Is monogamy an ideal for our species? In the sense that people say they believe in it, of course, but the people who follow through on that belief are...

I second this! You were a great aid in spurring on thoughts which I hadn't had before this! And while I didn't reply to everything, I did actually rea...

Wouldn't it have to talk about something you care about? So, rather than a philosophy of physicalism, or induction or truth -- a philosophy of love, o...

Great question. I think I'd say no! At least to whether the unwise can identify the wise. To the former I think you're right to say that we use our ow...

I like the following passage from The Symposium: Now, these days I think we mean more than this by "philosopher" -- and given my usual way of looking ...

@"Srap Tasmaner" -- I keep thinking it through-- since this is a thread on truth, it doesn't make sense to assume truth to explain meaning, thus denyi...

Eh, I'm just feeling around here too. One thing I'm leery of with (2) is that I've been saying I assume meaning -- so really I'm asking my interlocuto...

It seems to me that in the history of ". . .is true" truth conditions are a part of it. But "something else" is too. So 3 to circumvent 1 and allow fo...

The T-schema states: "p" is T iff p Using English to provide an interpretation to the schema: p is any statement in English " " is the mention operato...

Not if you include natural language semantics, as far as I can tell. You just also inherit the liars paradox with that.

Sure. I mean, I said exactly that earlier in the thread :D The problem is that they aren't universal. And, in order to evaluate "better fit" for any g...

Just to set out where my mind is headed at the moment, then: Everything is text, even if in the beginning there was no word. I'm thinking this is more...

Ah, OK. I guess I'm just looking for something a little more universal from a theory of truth, and I see the T-sentence as setting out that universal ...

I agree. I suppose what's still got me is the abstracta -- if we have any sentences in English which do not refer to material conditions, and that sen...

I think so. That makes sense to me at least. I'd say there's both a relevant-to-me and relevant-to-us: We let go of some of ourselves in joining a gro...

I should have replied to this too -- ah well. I agree with this entirely.

"Forms of life" is a phrase I try not to use because I don't feel like I really understand it too well -- "language-games" I feel comfortable with, th...

English can also be set up like this: "7 + 5 = 12" is true My suggestion is that "the kettle" works in a similar manner as "7" -- they are both abstra...

Only because we care about truth in relation to the material world, though. English is set up like that: Here we have a language with a truth predicat...

I'd say no. My first instinct is to deny the scenario because it's impossible :D But that's no fun. I mean, at the least, you'd have to understand all...

I think the problem I have with "non linguistic stuff" is our using language to point to it, which seems to incorporate it into language already. So i...

Upon re-reading you and I, my thoughts keep getting stuck on "deciding" -- we decide, yes, but I'm less certain that I decide. However, I'd agree with...

Maybe another way to put it is that the truthmaker, whatever it is, is decided by the people in a conversation. So rather than there being an eternal ...

I agree with the overall thrust here though. Thinking on it I believe the above what i posted above is a quibble, in the grand scope of the conversati...