Terrapin Station

I don't agree that there's a past or future that exists and in which "there are things." Only the present exists. Only the changes that are currently ...

Exactly. We could also say that if he's not real, nothing is really evidence for him.

Why would you be looking at it as a proposed game that someone is asking you to play?

That's a different issue than whether the two approaches are compatible or not. Re the issue you're bringing up in what I quoted above, it's simply a ...

Marketing/fundraising circa the 16th century though? And "industry" is certainly questionable there.

I can't make any sense of positing things that have no location or that are somehow "outside of time"

So you take "form" to be a kind of ontic simple then. That doesn't make much sense to me, but not much of your view does. Where do forms exist, exactl...

But what sort of ontological item is it? An idea?

Particular forms? What sort of thing, ontologically, is a form in your view? I don't know why you're mashing up "particular" and the idea of something...

Do you believe there are any particulars?

I don't know why you'd think that. An atheist who is "looking for God" sounds like an odd sort of atheist to me.

Insofar as they're composed of material, it's not particular material, in your view? Is it some sort of general material?

Do you believe that noses are material?

Right, that's ontology. So why would you bring up definitions all of a sudden and whether something would make a good definition? We're supposed to be...

Not at all. I'm stumped why you're thinking that. I wasn't really disagreeing with anything. I was just saying that (a) we can't think of an infinity ...

Why would we suddenly be talking about definitions per se?

So you believe that noses are not particular material, in particular relations, undergoing particular processes?

Well, I'm not a fan of the word "nihilism," because it gets thrown around in such a wide variety of ways that one always needs to explain what one has...

First off, I like how you claim that the term doesn't refer to anything, but then you immediately tell us what it refers to. And there is a scientific...

Right, so you can't object that consciousness can't be material because if so, it can't be "qualitatively identical." (Again, not that I agree with th...

Also, similarity is simply things being relatively more alike than different in some respect. That's an objective quality.

It sounds to me like you're getting extremely confused by language/by how language works. At any rate, so things that are material can be qualitativel...

So you're not saying that Joe and Pete have subjective experience that's numerically identical. What I don't get is why you have a "qualitative identi...

"Transcendental experience" is rather vague to me--you're not saying that any person who has a major change like that in a short period of time has ha...

That's about as close as I've come to agreeing with Deleuze.

There's also a thread on here about the idea of philosophy being stupid. This is a prime example. The idea that there's any more weight to an argument...

That's not true at all. In fact that's a very regular theme of especially postmodernism, post-structuralism, etc.

It seems odd to me that you'd be so eager to say that "2+2" isn't identical to "4," yet you readily say that Joe's subjective experience is identical ...

Sense is "meaning", reference is what is being "pointed at"

well, quantitatively identical, too, no? Wouldn't you say they're quantitatively identical but not numerically identical?

Yeah, I'd agree with that more or less, but that doesn't help when they just say something like "It's a moral axiom for me that human fetuses have spe...

They can't be wrong when it comes to morality, because there are no moral truths to get right.

The problem here though is that you're assuming there is a "rationale" beyond "that's how I intuitively feel about it" at the heart of any moral stanc...

Numerically the same? Or the two distinct numerical values?

The idea is that both references are to the (numerically) same entity. I agree that's worded a bit misleadingly if you don't get identity for some rea...

Oh, also, many are going to read this:to imply that one has to be a Husserlian.

One obvious problem with your argument is that anti-abortion stances do not necessarily hinge on when a fetus becomes conscious/becomes a person. They...

States of affairs. (Dynamic) ways the world is.

Duplicate

Then you don't have a very good grasp on what my view is. Probably because you really aren't that interested in understanding it for its own sake. If ...

That makes me think of this: https://youtu.be/4pPn-Nnin2Y

I'm an atheist simply because (1) I was never socialized into religion, and (2) by the time I learned about religious views in any depth, they struck ...

I have no idea what your philosophy of meaning would be then or how it would work, but it's sure different than mine. We seem to have a lot of very di...

I wouldn't say that either, but it is an act of judging to be overweight, or "fat" if one takes that to be synonymous with "overweight." "A conclusion...

So you wouldn't say that propositions necessarily have to do with meanings?

Right, so "You're overweight" isn't a conclusion you've reached from circumstances presented to your mind?

I don't agree with that re equals and equivalent. I agree with this: "Equal means two entities are the same entity; equivalent means that two entities...

I'm not using "judgment" in anything like a value judgment sense. I'm using it in the sense of "the forming of an opinion, estimate, notion, or conclu...

Definitely, but what are they doing? They judging that to be the case. Hence why trying to make the distinction is pretty pointless. Re skepticism you...

Sure you could have that, but again I'm wondering why anyone would bother with a word for that, especially because it's not anything that anyone can d...