S

Well, straightaway, for me, it's counterintuitive to apply the categories you do for stuff like this. Stuff about the necessity of a physical location...

I would advise against trying to engage with him productively. He seems like a dead end. He won't really listen, he'll just keep pushing his view, ass...

What? That needs an explanation, because at first blush it simply seems false. Why couldn't I just coin a name at the time? I don't have to say anythi...

Considered and rejected.

If it logically implies a subject where there are none, as in the hypothetical scenario, then that's a contradiction, which is a problem. Of course, t...

As in a subject, like a person, a who? Or as in subject-predicate? (Which would include a what). I read the articulate you linked to. What I referred ...

In my view, it seems to be a nonphysical realm. Or rather, a realm for which it is not appropriate to think of in terms of the physical. It's a subset...

Let's try again. Anyone who is going by their own definition of linguistic meaning and disregards mine, please raise your hand. Now, to anyone who has...

You can repeat it a million times, but it will still be a problem, unless you actually resolve the problem. First, the unresolved problem of ambiguity...

I have not been doubting your ability to put together a valid argument! This is the problem. You can repeat it a million times, but it will still be a...

Some people on the forum deny certain distinctions. They claim that a rule is the expression of a rule, or that an orange is the appearance of an oran...

Meaning, as opposed to the expression of it, is a bit mysterious, it seems, as early Wittgenstein thought. But things? Objects? Sure, we can point to ...

What do you want from me? I just told you of the limits of language. Aren't you listening? What's the point of naming names, which you are more than c...

Use your noggin.

Yes, like the cup that keeps blipping in and out of existence when we observe it, then look away, then observe it again! It's the same dodgy idealist ...

Excuse me? The pattern of waves on the ocean do not have linguistic meaning, which I've said countless times is the only kind of meaning I'm talking a...

Well, what do you expect? There's a reason we're losing patience with you, you know? Perhaps reflect back on your reply and consider what might have t...

No, certainly not. If you're going to publicly use what I said in my discussion, in this discussion, as an example of an alleged misunderstanding, the...

Define, "There are...".

So what? Not quite "what we hear" - which is a subjective wording - but besides that: yeah, so what? If you can't logically connect the two in the rig...

You're kidding, right? Are you ever going to allow yourself to proceed past this disingenuous and feeble excuse not to address the real issue? Or are ...

Why, at the things of course.

Alright, that's it. Enough of this madness. Pack it in or I'll turn this car around and you won't get to see Mickey Mouse and all of his friends. The ...

:lol:

We are on the same page. :up:

If I was reading anything into it, it was so as to interpret you as saying something logically relevant, and not an utterly trivial tangent that has b...

Well that now seems to be confirmed as a silly tangent. I've only ever spoke of correlation in a sense that is logically relevant to my argument, not ...

It seems ridiculous to me to say that just because dictionaries are in alphabetical order, and there are definitions in close proximity, that somehow ...

No you wouldn't. That simply doesn't follow as far as I can tell.

Neither do I, and that has got to be problem numero uno here. People keep losing sight of logical relevance. So much of what people have typed up and ...

It's only impossible to understand in practice, not in principle. In principle, if there was a being able to decipher the meaning there, then it could...

I am following you. The problem remains that I do not see the supposed logical relevance, so please skip ahead.

As later Wittgenstein put it, "I cannot use language to get outside language". And as early Wittgenstein put it: "I can only mention the objects. Sign...

Are you suggesting that they lead me to misunderstanding or others: those I'm critical of there? And what's this supposed misunderstanding?

That they're objective just means that they don't depend on being experienced in order to exist. Nothing you've said there explicitly contradicts that...

Is it possible for you to provide me with a logical basis for your posited requirements for there to be meaning? Or have we reached a dead end? It jus...

For...? (You still haven't learnt your lesson!). For there to be meaning, I take it. Which is the same problem, which still lacks a resolution.

That one wasn't specifically about idealism, actually. It was a more general point. But that claim came from a member of this forum, and I believe the...

Are you sure that she attacked him because she was acting in defence of her ducklings? Maybe he was just bad at philosophy, and she lost her patience ...

Here's an idea. Anyone who defines their terms in a way that necessarily implies a subject, raise your hand. Next, anyone who has their hand raised, p...

And why was it meaningful to them? Because they gave it meaning. We don't need to be. Undeciphered meaning is still meaning, obviously. And none of th...

The less I understand you, the more likely I am to scold you for not being clear.

Until you define all of those words, I have no idea what you're asking. So what you're asking must in fact be meaningless.

Only if I agree that it's necessary, and I don't in your example. “What can be said at all can be said clearly”.

And "photocopier"! Don't forget that one. He must define that term as well. Because I pretend not to understand what he says when he uses that term, a...

Wait, what? Nevermind.

No, that's a context. And people understand what's meant, at least roughly. True, but you keep respamming your copypasta without learning from your mi...

You're wrong. As I've been pointing out, the words "exist", "there is...", and "real", are rarely used non-contextually, and they don't need to be def...

Well, it's a philosophy forum after all, so one can never be sure!

I make a conscious effort not to use philosophical jargon where possible, and in any case, if I use a philosophical term, I'm willing and capable of t...