S

"For a large class of cases--though not for all--in which we employ the word "meaning" it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the...

Not as per how the term is more commonly used, but yes, in some idiosyncratic sense, it can be said to be objective. Big deal.

No, I don't expect you to provide warrant for that, just as I don't expect you to provide warrant for saying that you judge murdering a child to be mo...

It's narcissistic for me to think that I'm better at philosophy than the rest of you. It's also true.

No. Both of those definitions seem to widely miss the mark. Philosophy isn't a bunch of brains full stop. And doing philosophy doesn't consist in thin...

This shows that it is not sensible to use "fact" as he does, just as it is not sensible to use "horse" as I did. I only used it that way to demonstrat...

You'll never catch up, like Achilles in the race with the tortoise. :grin:

Why not just accept that it is both subjective and objective in different senses and avoid arguing over whether it is either one or other? That seems ...

He confuses the ad populum fallacy with the basis of general meaning.

You're just using the terms in a different sense, and a sense which doesn't make much sense in a broader context, because it makes sense to say that m...

There is no contradiction in affirming both of those statements. People who think that there's a contradiction just aren't good at logic.

Sometimes the acknowledgement of that gets lost, and sometimes the bigger picture gets lost. In meta-ethics, the application of that would lead to som...

Both funny and salient.

Meaning is use.

No, because that's just what meaning, generally speaking, is. Idiosyncratic use is irrelevant to meaning, generally speaking. A cat is not a dog. And ...

It's an objective truth in the relevant sense. Bringing up a different sense doesn't change that.

I agree with all of that. I'd just point out that they're also subjective in a sense, because that can mean dependent on a subject, or more specifical...

A fact is a fact. That "cat" means what it does because of common usage doesn't do anything in the broader context of what Banno is getting at. What d...

If we're talking about the statement, "The cat is on the mat", then I agree with Banno.

Sure. And going by that, in the context of ethics, it is a subjective fact that you judge murder to be wrong, and "murder is wrong" is unwarranted, be...

Given that what you're referring to is a logical possibility, that would make no sense. Unless you can demonstrate that it is logically impossible thr...

Yes, because the fact that we're talking about god, unspecified, means that we're talking about god, broadly, as per a number of possible conceptions,...

That's so absurd that it's funny.

You don't need to explain to me what "sufficient" means, you need to understand my point and respond appropriately. Nothing other than the logical pos...

It is sufficient in this case to justify the specific claim that I referenced, and to claim that therefore the contrary must also be justified is illo...

1. Horse is cooked bread. 2. Cheese on horse consists of cheese and cooked bread. 3. No cooked bread, no cheese on horse.

Lol.

I catch his drift, and I agree. I don't need him to explain. Maybe I am more intelligent than you.

I don't need you to clarify to me what he is trying to get across. I understand what he is doing, and I am responding accordingly.

Tim is right, for once. This is just a language game. It is a game, so should be treated as such. Who wants to play hopscotch?

What doesn't make sense about sliced bread browned on both sides by exposure to radiant heat, such as a grill or fire? That's how I define "horse". It...

I said, "Good for you". I then told you how I define "horse". What's the problem? Would you like some cheese on horse whilst you try to grasp what I'm...

You only think I'm being silly because you don't get what I'm doing. Review my comments and give it some thought.

I'm using logic to to demonstrate that what you're doing is silly.

Without bread, there can be no cheese on horse.

Good for you. I don't define "horse" like a lot of other people do. I define "horse" as sliced bread browned on both sides by exposure to radiant heat...

You're twisting my words. I wasn't generalising about logical possibility. I made a specific point. You haven't said anything to refute my specific po...

I already told you what a fact is, and I've given examples. I don't really care if you want to use the word differently. It seems that other responden...

That's a tacit acknowledgment of a fact. It's all I need for my argument to work. Nothing else you say even matters.

My reductio ad absurdum. It's hard to miss. A fact is something that's the case. It corresponds to a true statement. It's a fact that you submitted th...

Is this just trivial semantics, or does anyone have a serious refutation of my argument?

No, I'm not saying that. It is logically possible that we do know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist. But that doesn't refute my argument, so why ar...

No it isn't, and saying that makes no sense. If you cannot logically rule out the possibility of the actual existence of god, unspecified, then you ar...

No, you need to actually attempt to refute my argument, not just repeat your assertion.

Logical possibility is sufficient to justify the stance that we don't know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist. That was his point. To argue against ...

Except that it isn't. If it wasn't a fact that you submitted that comment, then it would be impossible for me to reply to it. But I'm replying to it n...

His point was that it's possible that a god exists, and that, given that we can conceive of an undetectable god, we don't know that god, unspecified, ...

Your shouting has been shouted.

Where is Jake's argument for the authority of reason which he relies upon for his criticism? I must have missed it.

I give it an apricot. I like apricots. Apricot.