Terrapin Station

Is either one of those uses of "external" and "outside" locational?

Are you somehow using "external" non-locationally? You'd have to try to make sense out of that.

You said that the "pen in front of me that I am perceiving now is external to my body but it is not external to my mind." That's relative extension .

And I wasn't name calling. I was honestly asking you whether you were trolling.

No I did not. I didn't say that statements are only of beliefs.

Then why are you making statements about relative extension?

Are you trolling?

What? Your mind extends beyond your body in your view?

Again, there isn't when we're talking of aboutness. Aboutness is simply the subject of the statement.

You had just written "unperceived object," so that's what I addressed . Are you changing your argument now to "We do indeed perceive external objects;...

You're saying it's unperceived, under an assumption of the framework of idealism. The realist isn't saying this. The realist might likewise say that y...

Whether there's a need to do it is irrelevant I think. The fact is that you could do this for whatever you believe (in), insofar as you believe it. Th...

Likewise, the realist's claim that "we can only experience our own minds" cannot be proved is irrefutable.

We'd say that we can experience external things because? Why would we suddenly start talking about proofs? No one is proving either realism or idealis...

That's a conjecture. We could just as well say, "Whatever I perceive I perceive directly as an external object." Change the definition. Arguing that x...

It's no more irrefutable than realism.

Describing things to other people in a manner that they're satisfied with is another issue entirely.

Well, to the extent that you couldn't describe what you believe (in), it wouldn't .And much sense to say that you believe (in) it? "I believe in plabb...

I see it as two different questions, and I don't see it as moral to control folks' free movement around the world via political borders within which p...

One thing is for sure--if Trump wins reelection in 2020, no Democrat will believe that he won in an above-board manner.

The person in that situation needs to "work on themselves" basically. They need to learn how to deal with that pain/torment without doing things that ...

You'd have to say that fictions are never about anything. lol "Say, Harry--I've never seen Star Wars. I was wondering if I'd like it. What's it about?...

Not re aboutness, and if you do, you have no comprehension of aboutness. I can just imagine you taking the SATs, there being a reading comprehension s...

lol re speaking for everyone.

Yes, it is. I just explained why, and you just quoted the explanation: "About" is a term that tells us what we're referring to semantically in the sen...

It's how possibility works in general, by the way, unless you're a strong determinist who doesn't buy the idea of any possibles that are not actuals. ...

By being in the psychological state of strong conviction. That's what "being sure" is. For some reason you're thinking "If it's possible to be wrong a...

Of course they can be. "Igneous rock is always polka-dotted" is wrong, but it's about igneous rock. "About" is a term that tells us what we're referri...

Sure. Yes, of course I'm sure I have beliefs. What does any of that have to do with anything I just said?

I didn't say that satatements can't be about states of affairs. That a statement is about some state of affairs doesn't imply that the statement isn't...

I said "You can't state something that isn't a belief." You're not saying that actual states of affairs consist solely of statements we make, are you?...

You're throwing the word "adequately" in there. I didn't say anything about that. You'd believe in God to the extent that you have some concept/unders...

Whether they have a belief would be irrelevant to the distinction. You can't statement something that isn't a belief.

In my view, revenge is never justified/justifiable. Revenge or punishment are often motivations in our approach to criminal justice--even if we don't ...

Right, the idea of "I believe that P" or "I believe 'in' x," where one cannot describe P or x, is incoherent.

But "Daydreaming that you are flying is a waste of time" is the same thing as "I believe that daydreaming that you are flying is a waste of time." It'...

What do you see as the difference between a value statement and something like "I was daydreaming that I was flying" that makes one subjective and the...

Something only has value insofar as some individual values it.

"Exists for us" you mean re how you know about it? If so, sure, but it's important not to conflate epistemology and ontology. Facts do not need us to ...

Evidence doesn't need analysis to show you what is. There is no evidence of intentionality in "natural laws."

Just added an explanation above.

No, I said it's a non-mental fact. That's different than saying it's true. Facts and truths are not the same thing. Facts are states of affairs in the...

Non-contradictory and it makes clear sense to us.

Opposing it to figuratively or manner-of-speaking "the same." For example, we nominalists will often say something like "It's two copies of the same C...

Actually, it is more than that, because it's a non-mental fact that "This is pleasant" is just a mental phenomenon.

An argument for laws of nature being intentional wouldn't cut it. You'd need empirical evidence of laws being intentional. (And this isn't even mentio...

Rattionality seems pretty simple to me. It's basically just a term for thinking both logically and in terms of things that one has a solid basis to be...

Nice post. I got a kick out of the musical chairs comment.

That's a different idea, though--it's more agnostic or neutral. I mean "positively" or "actively" believing in something that one can't describe.

Get involved with social meetups that have something to do with your interests. That's easier to do if you have a variety of interests and some of tho...