Tate

So you're agreeing that we never make it outside language. Talk if truthmakers is language on holiday.

You didn't look at the slingshot argument, did you? Sure. Correspondence theory is the correct definition of truth. If you want to explain to a toddle...

He says the opposite elsewhere. Welcome to the Bible.

One sign of mystery is a collection of arguments known as the slingshot. It's the reason we say the extension of any sentence is it's truth value. All...

It's just that we have a mystery box in the flowchart specifically regarding that last sentence. It looks like you've stepped out beyond the speaker a...

Do we all basically agree that we never get "outside" of language. Truth is a matter of comparing a statement to another statement?

It's mainly needed where there isn't much of an institutionalized safety net.

Fascinating.

Which is what?

He wasn't a great moral teacher if you define morality as a set of rules. He is supposed to have "replaced" the Mosaic Law with the law of love, which...

Nothing for you to consider, true.

It is. Historians try to limit its effects.

Yes. Like Socrates.

Historical Jesus

This is a speculation.

This is counter to the traditional Jewish view, that adhering to the Covenant leads to blessings you can see in terms of health and wealth. The idea o...

Mainly in Matthew. Each of the four gospels has a particular agenda. Matthew depicts Jesus as being a Messiah for the Jews only. Luke, being a gentile...

True.

Probably more from supposedly being the Son Of God. There's no circular relationship. Jesus is supposed by Christians to have ended or fulfilled the M...

What does the Old Testament have to do with Jesus' authority? This was superseded by the New Covenant, Tim. Catholics and Protestants all agree to tha...

The scriptures in the OP are from the Old Testament, Tim. It's not a NTS situation.

Jesus' teachings were for the challenges faced by the oppressed: how to become free of bitterness. Those who need it will find it.

True, it's a different situation. To Xtrix's point, even the Chairman of the Fed thought the economy was going to settle itself out of the COVID respo...

The financial crisis of 2009 was a direct result of inappropriate laissez-faire policies. I guess that's why I believe everyone should understand how ...

:up:

Who was Timothy Geithner, and what did he do to save the global economy from crashing?

You don't appear to know anything about what happened in 2009. You should read about it. Every American should understand what happened.

Well, yes, the Fed allows the money supply to go up over time. I meant that TARP didn't make a significant impact, and it wasn't intended to. Right. S...

Also, I don't recall anyone saying anything about inflation at that time. The whole world was like a deer in headlights.

So it didn't inflate the money supply. Actually, no. The point of payouts in 2009 was to keep the global economy from collapsing by increasing confide...

Not exactly. It was responding to catastrophe in the financial sector. Since that sector has become central to the US economy, the government had no c...

The 700 billion loaned to banks was eventually paid back in full. It's just a very different situation. The pandemic response was specifically meant t...

same thing?

Maybe someday.

True.

One nice thing about flat is how it highlights quieter voices. That can bring a richness to discussions. The downside is that loud, dogmatic people ca...

:kiss:

Sure. I'm just more optimistic. I guess because we do have a tendency to be mind-blowing when we want to be. :grin:

It's not feedback, Amity. Calm down.

Some of the moderation problems with this site would be solved by a branching discussion format. It's easier to do readings with a branching scheme be...

Sorry about that. The body and conclusions aren't pessimistic. They admit it's going to be a challenge and conclude that multiple technologies are a b...

Oh. :up:

What does it mean to agree? What is the object of agreement? A sentence?

It looks like you're going beyond phenomenology to system building.

Cool. That ego's vantage point won't allow you to say that model and world are one, will it?

Check out this article. It's a review of several potential approaches.

But how do we know any of this? What's our vantage point? Why not be satisfied with phenomenology?

Yes, I know. I just meant that switching to electric cars won't limit CO2 emissions until we have a replacement for coal and gas power plants. Forests...

I think nuclear is the higher priority, though. Electricity is mostly generated by coal or gas. Really? Is there research on that? Just curious. Yes, ...

We use models all the time. Physicists regularly compare models, so it doesn't seem to be superfluous.