Terrapin Station

It seemed to me that the point of this thread was basically that people spend so much time/effort on simply trying to prove existence, but nothing els...

If it's a human property, then how, exactly, does it occur independently of humans/outside of minds?

I think the only "argument" we need is that there's no empirical evidence of, and otherwise no good reason to believe, that there are any real (that i...

The purpose (According to whom? Purposes are alwaysto someone) of language is to pretend that value judgments/evaluative utterances are objective in s...

In other words say the claim is "The cat is on the mat (and necessarily at time Tx, in regard y, from perspective z, etc.)" We can call that claim P. ...

Misunderstanding of what and a proper account of morality per what?

So if the moral property/judgment/whatever-we-want-to-call-it isn't in the action itself, but requires a standard for determination, we need to ask ju...

When we're talking about objective properties, what you see is irrelevant. What you see matters if we're trying to figure out if something unusual is ...

You just agreed that the standard is not in the action itself. If the standard is necessary for determining whether the action is moral or not, then t...

I was just providing some detail to the question the TC asked, "Could it really prevent immigration?" The answer is "no," for the reasons I gave.

With artworks, a lot of it is simply fueled by the idea that scarcity drives up prices even more. So collectors have an incentive to put more limitati...

It's already well-known that most illegal aliens don't enter the country illegally. They don't sneak across the border. Even for those who do want to ...

I wasn't addressing the "overall point" of the thread. Just the one small bit that I quoted from your post (in relation to beliefs that are common amo...

Then the act itself doesn't have a moral whatever-you-want-to-call-it. That only occurs in relation to something that's not the act itself. And you're...

Is the natural standard of value in the act itself?

Again, the idea is that this is "just not in ways that are detectable scientifically (and they believe that that is on purpose, because faith is impor...

If someone were to say, "When one promises to do X, then X ought not to be done"--so they were to claim that that's the "meaning" of a promise, what w...

Just saw this response now. "What's the case" is ambiguous to me, because people often use it to refer to, for example, stating propositions. Otherwis...

I hadn't noticed that comment, but I don't agree that a system of measurement exists when we do not exist. Neither do rules. Clocks exist, but clocks ...

It's simply a matter of a lot of people not being able to, or not being comfortable with accepting a belief "on faith alone." So when we're talking ab...

None of that actually logically follows from god's existence, though. It only follows if we assume a variety of beliefs about god.

I'm not saying this because I believe it, but I'm aware of the views. A lot of people believe that * We do interact with God regularly during our worl...

So would you say that anything can be derived from God's existence alone?

Something "carries a burden" if and insofar as someone thinks about it that way, I suppose.

Sure, if I'm claiming to present an argument and I haven't.

Given the way we've set the economy up, if people can get away with charging for something they usually will, and they'll often try to charge as much ...

Couldn't you speak about something you imagine?

You can do whatever you want, but I'll just be addressing one thing at a time. If you want to type more than that it's up to you.

That was in a post I just made where you just addressed part if it.

You skipped "Wait, so you don't think that people are aware of meanings?" For example So one thing at a time.

Again, one thing at a time. What do you want to start with?

Yes, I skipped it on purpose. One thing at a time, so neither one of us skips anything.

So I don't know the word "icebox"?

I make locational distinctions all the time, for all sorts of things. For example, I might say, "we need to put this in the refrigerator," or "we don'...

If there can be something that's timeless, how would we get to any restriction on just what can be timeless? Why couldn't any arbitrary thing be timel...

Obviously we're using "disposition" differently .

People were claiming that moral whatever-you-want-to-call-thems (properties, judgments, qualities--whatever word they'd want to use, whatever word the...

I missed a bunch of posts, but re the above, (logically problematic) contradictions require that we're not equivocating --it needs to be the same exac...

At which point I'll explain what the objective properties are, exactly--the surface of the cup reflects a particular frequency of electromagnetic radi...

I still need to answer your earlier post by the way, but re this one, if no statement follows from any other, it's not an argument. We covered that al...

No you can't. It entirely depends on what an individual counts as "better running"

(1) you're not explaining how the action itself has value, (2) value in general isn't the same thing as a moral property anyway. Say that cubic zircon...

I'm not focusing on a narrow usage of the word "universe." Whatever exists--whatever its nature, if we go back to the earliest thing, either it always...

Okay. Could you detail the reductio argument, at least?

You seem to want to be forwarding a logical argument, but where we're only allowed to assume the contingent, contemporary scientific consensuses. The ...

You're saying that some of the statements in your initial post followed from other statements, but you just didn't fill out the details that show how ...

Again, those are the only two options logically. Ruling them out means you just don't bother thinking about or talking about this issue. That's actual...

So you don't agree that arguments require that some statements follow from other statements?

Again, I'm a realist on whether there are rocks. That doesn't make it the case that you presented an argument, however, or that you presented a reduct...

The issue isn't rejecting premises. The issue is that you didn't present an argument. In an argument, there need to be premises and conclusions that f...