Snakes Alive

We can judge that it is raining, but this does not mean that that it is raining is a judgment. Likewise we can judge that something is good, but this ...

We can make judgments both about whether it is raining, and whether something is good, correct? My question is, why does the fact that we only find ju...

Let's try again. Look at these two arguments side by side. Argument 1: -We only find judgments about whether it is raining in individuals. -Therefore,...

Why is the rain argument bad, but the goodness argument good? They have the exact same form.

OK, so what do you think of the edited argument?

Great. So we agree this is a bad argument. Yet this seems to be the very argument you provided, for why things are only ever good to some S. https://t...

OK, now I'm going to present a similarly structured argument. -We only find judgments about whether something is good in individuals. -Therefore, thin...

So we agree that the fact that we only find judgments about whether it's raining in individuals, does not establish that it is only ever raining to so...

I am asking you whether the argument in this post: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/252725 Gives us good reason to believe that it's ...

Yes, but I never claimed otherwise. Now can you please respond to my previous question, about whether the argument I gave, about how it is only ever r...

No. We can make a judgment about whether it's raining, but whether it's raining is a fact about water, the sky, and so on.

No, nor have I ever implied this. Can you please answer my most recent question now?

Let's try again. Suppose I gave the following argument to you: -We only find judgments about whether it is raining in individuals. -Therefore, it is o...

I don't see the relevance of the question.

Let's try again. You said things are only good to some S or other. When asked why, you said that the reason for believing this is that judgments about...

So what you're saying is that, for example, it is only raining or not raining, to S?

So are you saying that all judgments are only 'to some S?'

Aren't judgments about anything only found in individual activity?

So what's the evidence that good is always good to some S?

Why do we say that things are good, then, without specifying for who? Are we all just deluded?

Says who? We can just say something is good. We don't need to specify a 'to someone.'

OK, but we're not talking about what's good to S, we're talking about what's good.

Good to x? Aren't we talking about what's good? Where did the to x come from?

Is it possible to approve of something that's not good? Yes. Therefore, it cannot be that what is good is what one approves of.

There are a couple features of good that are analyzable: First, goodness is gradable. Hence the comparative and superlative forms, better and best, an...

Another one: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/audience/david-whitley/os-ae-orlando-name-david-whitley-0622-story.html "Another theory is that a...

Andrewk, please look at the title of this fucking article: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/11/twitter-might-have-been-named-friend...

Not to mention, the idea that one can only analyze found examples of sentences, and not constructed ones, is totally asinine. It would be like insisti...

Yes! Parents talk about naming their kids all the time, and what names they would have had if such-and-such! You've never fucking heard people talk ab...

So let me get this straight. You get to pull entire made up conversations out of your ass, but simple sentences are just too bizarre to warrant analys...

How???? According to who??? What on Earth is in any way strange about those sentences??? This is the most baffling thing I've ever heard. Where the he...

How about, "John could have been named Andrew?" Or what about "John would have been named Andrew, if his parents picked a different name?" Do you seri...

Stop.

I made a mistake re-entering this thread. Just got mad again. See you later once more. One day, one day, people will read. I dream of that day. Til th...

You literally invented an entire imaginary conversation in your post! Are you for real? Are you seriously implying that no one can look at novel sente...

Holy shit, keep reading. There's an example with a proper name subject right there. READ.

Here is a live example of an English user, outside of a philosophical context, doing exactly what andrewk says one never would. We should all be so lu...

What the hell are you talking about?

The point is that there is one predicted reading of the sentence that is contradictory if one thinks "Nixon" means the same as "the individual named N...

The bad de dicto reading is if you don't use the indexical.

Sure. Let "actual" be an indexical such that "actual P" is a property true of an individual just in case that individual is P at w@, where w@ is the a...

It follows from the behavior of "actual" as an indexical and the definition of rigid designation. If you'd like an explanation of that, sure, but it's...

For anyone who's interested as to why the view is wrong, it's because it predicts a de dicto reading of "Nixon might not have been named Nixon" that i...

I find the "individual named Nixon" description analysis of the name "Nixon" to be very amusing in a macabre way. It's so perfectly indicative of a ce...

Kant does not posit the existence of a noumenal world. Read "The Ground of the Distinction of All Objects into Phenomena and Noumena." The noumenon is...

Not in principle, but in practice artificial languages tend to be created for the purpose of disambiguation.

However, I think the negative thesis against the descriptivists is an empirical one, and correct. I don't think there's a good case at this point for ...

I take no issue with devising a schema of translation into a technical language, if one wants to ask questions in a technical langauge for philosophic...

What the word 'water' correctly applies to is a matter of linguistic usage. And so the correctness of this claim depends on whether linguistic usage t...

So far as I can tell, the reason is historical, and traceable to things that Frege and Russell thought. Their concerns in turn were driven by worries ...