You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

S

Comments

Obvious?! It's extremely weird that you presumably believe that, for example, the fact that I'm alive is actually located somewhere, presumably somewh...
February 12, 2019 at 12:02
You really see no resemblance between the reasoning of an idealist, and your reasoning here? Wow. Okay then. That makes me think of the emperor's new ...
February 12, 2019 at 01:23
I thought that this would be a problem from the start. So, basically, I can't reason with you, because you're unswervingly committed to some sort of i...
February 12, 2019 at 01:17
In: Brexit  — view comment
I agree. What it needs is more spam about David Cameron and his criminal conspiracy. Sorry, please continue.
February 12, 2019 at 00:34
Yes! Good times. I picked up a thing or two from that discussion, as you may have noticed. :grin:
February 12, 2019 at 00:05
You've gone wrong straight away. That's what a cup is in my language. You don't get to make the rules. It's my language, not yours. And if you're talk...
February 12, 2019 at 00:04
In: Brexit  — view comment
I see. So it's appropriate for you to spam a philosophy forum, but it's inappropriate of me to criticise your spamming of a philosophy forum, on that ...
February 11, 2019 at 23:27
In: Brexit  — view comment
You're funny. I've done the serious part in relation to Brexit. What you were replying to was about your spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, sp...
February 11, 2019 at 23:17
Well, gentlemen, I'm glad we've finally put this matter to rest, and I look forward to seeing the notable absence of any future discussions on abortio...
February 11, 2019 at 23:11
What in the name of fuck... :rofl: If they're giving you shit, throw rocks at them or something. I dunno.
February 11, 2019 at 23:08
In: Brexit  — view comment
Hmm. I'm still not quite convinced. Can you please copy, paste, and resubmit some more of your lengthy, rambling conspiracy theories a few hundred mor...
February 11, 2019 at 22:42
Spot on.
February 11, 2019 at 22:25
If what I've said counts as that, then yes. I buy that if we all went extinct right now, then language would still have meaning, and I don't buy that ...
February 11, 2019 at 21:40
I find that view peculiar and unconvincing. But anyway, if that is so, then language rules must have a location or multiple locations in one of those ...
February 11, 2019 at 21:17
I think that it's a key point that meaning can be public, and that in at least some cases it is so. I also think that these "In spite of needing a min...
February 11, 2019 at 21:10
It's basically the is/ought problem, isn't it? For any "is", there's always the open question of whether we ought to act this way or that in relation ...
February 11, 2019 at 20:39
Yep.
February 11, 2019 at 20:32
This is a very basic misunderstanding. I think that you're out of your depth here. You haven't demonstrated a contradiction under moral relativism. Yo...
February 11, 2019 at 20:26
Different categories: one about morality, the other about a possible state of affairs. Different ways of reaching a judgement: I don't appeal to my mo...
February 11, 2019 at 20:20
It feels to me like you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. Instead of writing such lengthy responses, why don't you just make it easier for both...
February 11, 2019 at 19:53
These are the possibilities: a) it has a location, but I don't know where it's located, b) it has a location, but no one knows where it is, c) it does...
February 11, 2019 at 19:02
Where is the time? I can show you a clock, if that helps, but that only displays the time.
February 11, 2019 at 17:53
It doesn't become anything other than what it already is: a language rule, as in this means that. You can categorise that however you like, but in the...
February 11, 2019 at 17:19
Oh. I think I just realised why you found that funny. You misinterpreted what I said. I didn't mean that talking about the statement isn't speaking pr...
February 11, 2019 at 17:05
Yes, I am, and that's just as obvious as that they are not, assuming they're speaking properly.
February 11, 2019 at 15:17
How do you reach that conclusion? :chin: If you're going to say that it's useless for determining an objective right or wrong, then obviously I agree....
February 11, 2019 at 15:02
Interpretation is a brain process. It is not the same as "this means that", which is a language rule. Understanding definitely requires interpretation...
February 11, 2019 at 13:27
No, interpretation isn't objective. By objective I mean independent of any subject or subjective activity. Interpretation is a subjective activity. Ob...
February 11, 2019 at 08:31
In: Brexit  — view comment
Noted. Besides, the idea of the alpha was just another criminal conspiracy started by David Cameron. Or was it the lizard people? I forget.
February 10, 2019 at 18:52
Oopsy-whoopsy! Never mind then, eh?
February 10, 2019 at 18:36
:smirk:
February 10, 2019 at 18:34
Objective (as I've defined it). Um, no. Just no.
February 10, 2019 at 18:23
Please explain what you mean by the function of language, and please explain why you started going on about what it takes for language to function in ...
February 10, 2019 at 17:47
Let's say that it does involve interpretation. Does it follow that linguistic meaning is not objective (which is where the discussion lead)? No, it do...
February 10, 2019 at 17:08
Before I get into the details of your reply, let's go right back to the beginning and analyse our discussion. This is where the problem began. It bega...
February 10, 2019 at 16:56
They wouldn't be talking about the statement itself, unless they didn't know how to speak properly. Quick tip: that's too many examples. This seems to...
February 10, 2019 at 09:20
Liking the new profile pic, @"Banno". :grin:
February 10, 2019 at 09:06
Okay, thanks for confirming that your position is contradictory.
February 10, 2019 at 09:01
And therefore I would reject that morality. Is there anything which you wouldn't go along with on this basis? Raping your mother? Setting your childre...
February 09, 2019 at 23:05
In: Brexit  — view comment
Yes, sweetie, but I'm the alpha, and as long you don't you forget that, we'll get along just peachy. :sparkle:
February 09, 2019 at 22:47
Ah, someone else who confuses understanding and meaning. My distinction can help you with that problem. What you're describing in your first sentence ...
February 09, 2019 at 22:30
You cannot pick up the meaning. It's not that it has no meaning, and it's not that it needs to be given one, it's that you need to pick it up. Banno c...
February 09, 2019 at 22:21
Sure, it can be, but that doesn't mean that it's appropriate to do so. And it wouldn't be appropriate if one only meant to make a descriptive statemen...
February 09, 2019 at 22:09
That's fucked up. I certainly wouldn't go along with killing all the blond haired babies. Proper be damned. Because I trust my moral judgement more th...
February 09, 2019 at 21:50
What more is there to say about them? They're false, and they're false partly because of the way that they're interpreted. It's not a good way to inte...
February 09, 2019 at 21:41
In: Brexit  — view comment
I kinda like Donald Tusk. And that Jean-Claude Drunker geezer, too. This was a funny moment.
February 09, 2019 at 20:58
There is no absolute wrong and proper, only relative wrong and proper. In the hypothetical, it would be proper relative to everyone - myself included,...
February 09, 2019 at 20:37
Of course, in a relative sense. The puppy kicker's feelings are wrong relative to my standard of judgement, and probably your standard of judgement, a...
February 09, 2019 at 20:25
Evasive much: Please answer the question directly. Is it a fact? Yes, no, or don't know?
February 09, 2019 at 20:04
:lol:
February 09, 2019 at 20:03