Terrapin Station

I wouldn't normally say that, but I'd agree with the idea of it.

Obviously I don't agree with that.

External reality, yes. Objective truth, no.

That doesn't sound like relativism to me, and it sounds like you believe that oughts can be derived from is's.

Meanings are specific mental events in particular individual's brains. And truth value is a subjective judgment particular individuals make about the ...

How would moral codes be "legitimate" or "illegitimate" in your view?

You can't refute any moral claims because moral claims are not true or false. They're ways that people feel. They're endorsements or rejections of beh...

I don't dislike the girl statue aesthetically, but yeah, given the significance of the bull statue, it was kind of an ignorant addition, and I agree w...

That all seems pretty absurd--and pretty arbitrary and kind of word salady--to me.

No. Propositions are the (meanings of) the statements.

I don't agree that "reality itself" issues propositions. It's something that individual persons do.

Joe's not saying anything about a unicorn not existing on Main Street, is he? So where is a proposition that a unicorn doesn't exist on Main Street co...

Yeah, that's a type of relativism. I was just saying that as a relativist myself, I don't like the emphasis on culture/society in that approach. I thi...

I don't like the social/cultural emphasis of that. We can certainly say that relative to one society something is legal whereas relative to another so...

Unless we're talking about artworks, I consider straightfowardedness to not only be more honest, but also more polite. To me it's polite to be forthri...

It's not a strawman applied to me, and I disagree with framing morality as something cultural. Cultures do not think. They don't have views about cond...

The words are simply grammatical permutations. "That's the truth"="You've stated something that is true." "Truth-value"="the assignment of 'true' and ...

Everyone's criteria for whether some conduct is okay or not is their own opinion--how they feel about various types of conduct, whether following some...

There are two issues there: (1) To an extent, especially when we're talking about basic arithmetic, it's simply a factor of how humans (and perhaps pe...

Okay, so sticking with the unicorn example, what's the proposition that's both being asserted and denied unequivocally? He's not denying "There is a u...

You're not getting the square circle thing right, first off. The issue there isn't the shapes. It's the idea of constructing a square equal in area to...

Joe's idea is NOT that there is not a unicorn on Main Street. So his idea isn't inconsistent in that respect. You can't say that someone's belief that...

How would you state a specific example of P & ~P re the idea?

If Joe believes that there's an extramental/objective unicorn on Main Street, then we could say that he "defines" as his idea that there's an extramen...

You could say you "define" it as your idea, sure. No one is defining a unicorn as "not being what it is" though.

No one said anything about anything "defining anything as not being what it is" though. I don't know where you're getting that from. Whether someone h...

That question doesn't make sense, because whether something is okay or not is a matter of someone's "private" or personal views. "Is this okay aside f...

Nonsense. I explained exactly what it is. Maybe it's that you didn't understand what I wrote?

What would be inconsistent about that? You must be defining "inconsistent" in some unusual way.

Only if you're conflating an objective unicorn with a subjective idea of a unicorn.

The issue is that nothing has objective meaning, value, etc. It's not that there is no subjective meaning, value, etc. Meaning and value are things th...

I know, and I've stated it here on this board and the previous board at least a few times: ‘P’ is true for S iff S judges ‘P’ to have relation R to ei...

It's not though. If I say, "'All truth is relative' is true," as a relativist, and as a truth-value subjectivist, I'm not saying that "'All truth is r...

If by "right" you're referring to truth values (namely, assigning "T" to some proposition), in my view truth values are subjective judgments that indi...

I'm a relativist, but in that I'm not saying anything about anyone's views "binding" or "not binding" anyone. What I'm saying in that primarily is tha...

What doesn't exist is the extramental/objective unicorn.The idea of the unicorn is logically consistent insofar as it goes though.

How could you have read my response above and thought that what I was disagreeing with was the phrase "interpretive paradigm"?

No, I didn't. I said "you might be imagining a real (extramental) unicorn." That's precisely saying the opposite of what you're claiming there. It's p...

It's not an issue of causality, but identity.

This is incorrect. Some materialists may very well see it as an appearance versus reality issue, but that's not necessary for it to be materialism, an...

Where do I define anything that way?

You're using "it" there as if the thing in question exists and has properties. It doesn't beyond something we're imagining. So it doesn't have an inco...

Why do people keep repeating the same mistakes here? Not all materialism is eliminative materialism. Some materialism doesn't at all reject subjective...

A logically consistent thing that doesn't exist would have to be something you're imagining, but where you're imagining it as something not just imagi...

I'm not completely sure what you're asking, but what it is for something to have a meaning is for an individual to make particular sorts of mental ass...

That seems like an awful lot to try to cover in just over nine pages. I didn't read through it yet, but from your abstract, I disagree with taking exi...

It's relative (indexical) to a given reference point, yes.

Right. What has occurred is what occurred before what's occurring now. What is yet to occur is what will occur after what is occurring now. So after t...

Thanks.

?? The past is before the present, not after.