Fire Ologist

I am too. My point since the beginning here is that we assert in absolutes in order to move towards the world and truth, and we need to dissect every ...

Just a little language police stop and frisk.

:up: Makes sense again. Leaves open the possibility or at least hope of baggage free observation.

Ok, so does that mean you would never use the phrase “since no one is ever”? That would seem more consistent to me - to avoid saying things like that.

In order to say that, don’t you need to see all people at all times? Isn’t that so high above all space and time, like from nowhere? If you were alway...

Maybe it is just the way it was said. Sounded absolute. None. Not one. Is ever. Not ever. Absolutely no one can possibly be. Since none of us is ever....

Doesn’t it take a contextless, baggage-less posture to be able to say what you just said above?

Unless you don’t believe in definitions. Processes should have goals. But dissection focused philosophical styles are process for the sake of process....

I am starting to see the dialectic as between process oriented (with no clear goal) (like this thread Banno set up), and goal oriented (with a clear p...

Indeed. Full of life, color and personality, pouring through this often dry, black and white forum. She was always fun to read. And such a great write...

Trying what things out? Count is talking about developing a thing to try out. (Not trying to follow it or claim it is from from god.) You go from “god...

Sounds authoritarian. Count’s been doing one thing for about 10 pages now. Beating his head against the wall, where Banno says whatever he thinks will...

Context is always necessary, absolutely.

You left out one part. In order to listen, someone needs to say something to listen to. We say as metaphysicians. We listen as analytics. We trust eac...

Ok, really? The issue is not the issue? What about the framing (context) do you like? Although I’d rather have you explain how that answers the questi...

Seems like “in context” is meant to do the same work as “in truth, or absolutely”, all of these to avoid arbitrariness. But we can ask of the context ...

Yes. If you are both working towards agreement. If you are both working towards the same final result. If you are “working together.” That would be a ...

I see determinate things and indeterminate things, so there is a quality to each and they are more like poles. Like determinacy and indeterminacy are ...

Maybe a little. I mean, the level of this conversation really has nothing to do with real life. We each can’t really infer anything about how we get a...

Yes. Back. AND forth. Both sides of the dialogue working together. It does take humility. But not too much or you shrink from making the assertion. Bu...

Appreciate you. I think it’s available for anything speakable. I also think it is difficult to achieve. But wouldn’t take step one towards it with pas...

Third option, I project build, welcoming your dissection, to produce a well tested product. Except not here. Resisting it not on any principle but res...

Banno is really passive aggressive. It’s hard when you are so smart like him to put up with us, so he builds up that anger I guess. Just joining in th...

Should we start another thread? “Property”? Truth is said in statements or known in subjects and is about what is. Correspondence is part of it. Align...

So you admit there is a world we are both talking about? Specifically, something, any thing, in it or about it, like for instance, ‘Frank the poster i...

Truth: To pry into this great question I would start by saying two things: 1. An example of one truth is like this: there is this person who calls him...

Sort of. More like the “why don’t you just answer the question” problem. The truth. Something absolute. Something not arbitrary. Something said about ...

I spoke too fast. I should have said “pretty air tight” (because everything with Wittgenstein in a general sense has to have blurry edges). And I shou...

Is it always and only an all or nothing option, or only some of the time? I have to smile, because you still haven’t directly addressed Count’s questi...

Cool. I’ll check it out. Thanks

I agree. The unconditioned is probably the most analytic way of referring to what was formerly often called “God,” or the “transcendent” or “the One” ...

To what part? I thought it was all that was needed. Not one single, tiny definition?

Honestly, here on Banno’s thread, and he’s not talking to me anymore, I’m kind of afraid to bring up anything close to God. I don’t want that to be ho...

I’ll bite. Yes, there are true statements. Some of them, are about some things, in the world. I don’t know about “taken together, these tell us about ...

God is a survivor. We throw God out and we are left with the exact same world. He just won’t die no matter how hard we try. And that is literally true...

I love it when Banno, actually talks philosophy. I don’t even need any humility, although that would be nice. I love this thread. The OP was a great s...

I didn’t mean to not directly answer your question here. My non-answer “maybe” was actually meant to demonstrate something. I was trying to demonstrat...

It’s not about justification. You didn’t answer the question. Edit: Count: Is that blue or not? J: Well it’s not green. Fire: Is not green, blue or no...

Maybe. Or should I say maybe not. Does that answer the question?

Yeah. You are trying to avoid arbitrariness, while avoiding authoritarianism. Let’s go back. You answered this to avoid arbitrariness saying that narr...

Then, some narratives are acceptable for only one sort of reason. (And you have asserted some sort of absolute criteria exists and a universally non-a...

Yes sorry. The story of narration goes: So is this always absolutely the case, or can there be reasons not to accept it?

This is a narrative. Is there a reason the above is acceptable or not?

This is all spot on. Maybe all narratives are acceptable/true/valid/good enough. If we want to say no to that, what Count says above has to be true. A...

Well, Witt’s approach is air tight. It is just not about the world. It’s inside baseball. So I wouldn’t say it is superior at all. It leaves out the a...

I agree the poles are “what is vacuous” and “what is determinate.” Maybe more plainly, we speak of what is indeterminate and what is determinate. And ...

As usual I’m probably missing something but I don’t think the concern is “everything”. It’s not a monolithic theory of all things. It’s about a unity,...

Excellent. So many ways to properly be wrong. :razz:

:up: I like “weaponized relativism.” 100%. History, and the best folks history could muster, are tools (if not wisdom), and we are robbing students to...

Asking “what is x?” doesn’t suppose anything, except there is x.