Terrapin Station

Tell me what this has to do with meaning, and if I think you've made a good case for that, we'll talk about it in this rather than in another thread.

I'm neither saying that patterns of sound waves do not occur in the sounds themselves nor that the meaning of blue (you say "but none of this means an...

In Kant, what is the distinction there with respect to sensible intuitions?

A common definition of "radioactive" is "emitting or relating to the emission of ionizing radiation or particles," but in any event, that issue had no...

That probably doesn't amount to something different than what I'd say, but I'd avoid phrasing it as "the past being embodied" etc. What's embodied is ...

I think I'd add understanding the difference between singular and plural grammatically.

It would be, "If there are appearances then there must be something creating or causing the appearances" Re his formal comment, he's talking about, fo...

"Sufficiently complex" because quarks, hydrogen atoms, etc. don't appear to have minds. It appears to require more complexity than that. So there is g...

When I use "people" or "person" I'm actually thinking "creature, or just simply entity, with a mind." So not necessarily a human. Not necessarily some...

I don't at all agree with this. And in my opinion, the person whose feelings are hurt is the person who needs to work on themselves more.

Phrases like "what having an idea constitutes itself" do not make any grammatical sense to me. So I don't know what to do with that. Aside from that, ...

You're asking me if the interpretations are more or less correct. I said, "No, they're not more or less correct." Are you saying that you're asking me...

And you have to be kidding with crap like that. The whole post really. I can pick it apart, but what good is that going to do us? You're still going t...

Yeah, just ignore all of that stuff that I wrote in the last post addressed to you.

lol--so it's my problem "not being able to read" when it was a typo.

But that's not my view. Validity is a very specific logical idea. Interpretations have nothing to do with that. And if they're not more or less correc...

You put ("even more or less correctly") in parantheses.

Nope. Humorously, you don't know what I'm saying. Maybe we could have 50 more posts about it.

The phrase you used was "abstraction to an idea amounts to reification." Abstraction to an idea is an idea, right? It would be the process of abstract...

How many different ways do I have to answer that? It's not like I haven't been straightforward about my answer. For the third or fourth time now, no, ...

And what does that have to do with "When you take a position that abstraction to an idea (i.e. you have an idea about something) amounts to reificatio...

C'mon, man. I didn't say anything at all resembling that.

"Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley argue in their essay 'The Intentional Fallacy' that 'the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desi...

Yes, I'd say that there are no "more or less correct" interpretations. It's not "correct" to match what the author says. I agree with the viewpoint kn...

I said already that in my view there is no such thing as a correct interpretation. Texts themselves do not have meaning. We assign meanings to things....

With respect to the interpretations. For example: I have one text: &@% that I interpret to read "Dogs are pets." I discover a second text: !@(# that I...

What's implied by my position? I have no context re what you're responding to. Where did I say anything at all like "your ideas and concepts have noth...

You might claim things that aren't true. If you don't care about that, then <shrug>

Reification is taking something that is just an idea and projecting it into the external world as if it's not just an idea. The reason you shouldn't d...

??? Potentials don't exist. The idea of them amounts to what I explained about possibilities. If that doesn't count as an explanation to you, you need...

The first part says "in the sense of . . ." --hence, they don't actually exist. We can't reify them. It's another way of saying that something isn't i...

Again, I'm not saying that the expression of racism is a category error. I said that it's a category error to classify beliefs and expressions as subj...

If use doesn't obtain absent people, then use is NOT a property of the hammer, at least not alone. (Remember that above, when you asked me about this,...

As something moral/ethical. Because morals/ethics aren't about people merely having beliefs or expressing things. They're about performing actions on ...

So, for one, the ink marks do not have a use in the absence of people, do they?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

Because in my view no beliefs or expressions of beliefs, preferences, etc. are unethical. I see that as a category error.

I don't know what the act/react distinction would be in the context of reason doing x to y.

So when you analyze it, you realize that hammers and wet noodles and nails and so on have different tensile/rigidity properties, different extensions/...

Hence why we need to analyze what we're really claiming/what's really going on ontologically. "X has utility"--are we saying that x, some object, like...

Anything extant is (or "has") properties. I'd not be able to make sense out of saying that something exists (in whatever regard) but has no properties...

First, I wouldn't say that any belief or expression is unethical. But in general racism is considered unethical because it's conflated with actions ro...

Did you read the part where I said that meanings aren't the same as patterns?

I'm still not clear on what you'd mean by shared, but my view is that objective reality has nothing at all to do with agreement.

No, that wouldn't just be a property of the hammer. It would be a property of the hammer, the nails, the air between the hammer and the nails, the per...

That's not sorting this out. Asking "So it's utility . . . " suggests that I'd say it's not a property of the hammer, right?

I thought you just responded positively that agreement doesn't give anything more normative weight. Re "shared mental," shared in what sense?

I don't know if you're going to respond, and I shouldn't move on yet, but this is important: The disagreement with S isn't at all about "The word 'dog...

The reason I wrote it that way, by the way, was because you said this: " your position with regards to properties of objects which exist only in the m...

Let's slow down for a minute, because I don't want posts to keep getting longer, especially if I'm having to repeat stuff I already said, explain thin...