Metaphysician Undercover

I think the "non-aggression principle" has been shown to be deeply incompatible with the right to private property.

If you read what a philosopher says, and it makes sense to you, this itself is an attestation to the philosopher's credibility. If it doesn't make sen...

It's widespread at TPF, although it has a bad reputation so many who practise it here, claim not to. I would say that there are two distinct forms of ...

Yes, rant some more, I love it! How would you define "axiom"? Do you see a difference between an axiom in mathematics and an axiom in metaphysics? In ...

How are we ever going to know what to do in the future, if we do not pay respect to what was done in the past? We learn through experience. And if we ...

It's not a question of how it turns out, it's a question of whether or not there is something there being pointed to, and the answer to that question ...

This statement is clearly false, and does not make sense. There is an illusion of sense, which you have created with ambiguity of verb tense. When you...

What I believe, is that the attempt to simplify a complex thing is a mistake, because it leads to misunderstanding, in the sense of a person who belie...

I suppose the best reference here would be Metaphysics Bk.9 Ch.9. No, clearly I am not denying that, I am citing that as the reason why Aristotle must...

Telling someone what to do is not a matter of pointing to an activity, because the particular activity which is referred to does not even exist at the...

I've noticed a trend in modern metaphysics which is to attempt to create consistency between the principles of modern science, and the principles of A...

There is nothing within Aristotle to deny forms without matter, nor that such "Forms", if they exist, are actual. That is why Neo-Platonists and Chris...

For Aristotle we can't know the form of the particular because we know through universals. This leaves a gap of separation between the form of the par...

Completion eludes us ... except maybe in death.

There's a saying, "it falls on deaf ears". I think it means that if they do not want to ear it, they will not hear it.

I think that telling someone what to do, is not a matter of pointing at anything. How is an activity, which doesn't even exist yet, a thing? So, how d...

The word "use" is used in many different ways. If we restrict "use" to the sense of using words, then I think you need to realize that we use words fo...

Lack of agreement does not necessarily mean that we disagree. If we do not understand each other then we can neither agree nor disagree. To be without...

Self-destruction is worse than being destroyed by something else. Didn't Jesus say something about that when criticized for not washing his hands, foc...

Right, we can use language and play language games without any agreement, just like the girl in the op. Agreement may come afterwards, for those who s...

Yes I went through that already. It is appropriate, in a philosophical discussion, or logical argument, to say that two distinct things are of the sam...

You are making the same unwarranted generalization as Mww, assuming that we all experience the same thing. Quite obviously, we do not all experience t...

I think this is where your confusion lies Luke. I never said that agreements in ways of use are non-existent. I said that such generalizations about w...

No, we were working with the premise that meaning is use, and attempting to determine how "use" is being used in this sense. To say that a definition ...

I don't see how agreement constitutes a common perspective. Care to explain? That we agree to refer to things using the same words does not mean that ...

How does agreeing on something validate a common perspective? Suppose you and I agree to call something by the same name, how would this validate the ...

Of course my instance of using "same" is not the same as Aristotle's, that's exactly the point, and it's quite obvious according to how "same" is defi...

Don't be absurd, this is the "same" which is defined by the law of identity. It was stated by Aristotle as a means of expelling sophism from philosoph...

I have a perspective, and you have a perspective. They are clearly not the same. What I am asking is how do you validate this proposed "human perspect...

Your proposition is flawed because it assumes a "for us". Since we each have our own distinct perspectives, there is no such thing as "for us", when w...

Well, I think that generalization arises from the public aspect, the plurality of use. I use a word in one way, you use it in a similar way, and for t...

As I said, I'm not denying the existence of generalizations, I'm just pointing out that the existence of such things is very hard to understand. A gen...

No I wasn't really going down that road. Notice I spoke in a general sense, and I even used "use" in a general sense. Even so, don't you agree that ea...

You clearly said, "leaving off" the "for us", that this is unwarranted. And that is what I objected to. What I said, is that if we leave off the "for ...

As I said, the answer is yes. I see it commonly, in my life, not on TV, not every day, but more times than I can count. And it appears to be on an inc...

Really? It was a tweet. Trump doesn't make speeches. He makes sporadic remarks strategically aimed at incite.

I don't see how you can argue this. If it is true that "things only ever exist from a perspective", then perspective is fundamental as the basis for t...

So when the vast majority of people see Trump encouraging racism on TV, this does not count as "day to day life" because it's not reality? I suppose y...

Actually this is exactly what I said, and what I meant. This is proceeding in the opposite direction of what I suggested. Each instance of use would b...

What logic? It looks like a matter of begging the question to me, and that is a refutation Care to show me the premises and conclusion, to demonstrate...

We weren't talking about seeing an asteroid, we were talking about experiencing an asteroid, and what it is which "produces" the experience. I think t...

Why would it have to be a mass hallucination? if one person hallucinates an asteroid, then that person can speak about that asteroid.

There is no such thing as "use" in a general sense because each instance of using something is unique and particular.

But this is false. There could be an hallucination in which there is an experience of an asteroid, in which case there is the experience of that aster...

When being and not being are subsumed within becoming, in the manner of Hegelian dialectics, the "qualitative leap" is difficult to make sense of. Suc...

I see no reason to conclude that this strife is a "striving for agreement". In some cases it may be, but in other cases not, so we cannot characterize...

Yes, I completely agree that there is such a prejudice, we need to look no further than the English word "right" to see that. But I think that some of...

So it doesn't make sense to say that there were things called "asteroids" at that time, does it? This is blatantly false in two distinct ways. First, ...

Premise (1) begs the question. The existence of "an asteroid" assumes the human spatial-temporal perspective which individuates and identifies somethi...

Do you see a difference between knowing how a word was used, and the act of using a word? If you associate meaning with use, then I would say that kno...