You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Terrapin Station

Comments

So you're appealing to empirical evidence of something that is not at all in any studies?
January 06, 2017 at 13:10
I'm not endorsing a particular view of physics. I'm giving you MY view. In MY view, time IS included in a frame of reference. it's the changes/motion ...
January 06, 2017 at 13:06
Just saw his links now. He says that the evidence isn't conclusive and he cites studies that reach neutral conclusions as well as the conclusion that ...
January 06, 2017 at 13:03
I didn't read every post above. What study did you reference?
January 06, 2017 at 13:01
Not past or future relative to a frame of reference.
January 06, 2017 at 12:43
I'm very libertine, and I'm a big fan of sex. Contemporary culture seems rather prudish when it comes to sex to me. We are still very monogamy-oriente...
January 06, 2017 at 08:27
What you can't be mistaken about is (1) your present phenomenal experience as your present phenomenal experience, and (2) your present evaluations/ass...
January 06, 2017 at 08:22
That's the whole point of truth-value (truth, falsehood, and any other modalities we'd allow) being a property of propositions, and on my view, being ...
January 06, 2017 at 07:07
Even under the view that what morality is relative to is individual disposition? Why wouldn't that be a contingent matter in that case? It would be th...
January 06, 2017 at 06:54
I would say that anyone who thinks of "fact" as connoting "crisp, precise and uninfluenced by subjectivity" has a misconception of what facts are. Fac...
January 06, 2017 at 00:28
If it's vague, isn't the state of affairs--the fact--that it's vague?
January 06, 2017 at 00:20
But there are a lot of subjective facts in general (keeping in mind that subjective simply refers to mentality). For example, if you desire a surf gre...
January 06, 2017 at 00:16
The problem with giving an example is that there's a good chance that it will turn into a game of "come up with a story so that this characteristic wa...
January 06, 2017 at 00:11
I don't know why sense would matter. "Facts is facts," even if there are two senses (whatever those senses would be). And if your characterization of ...
January 06, 2017 at 00:05
Because correspondence theory, on your view, is this: "correspondence theory of truth . . . the relationship between a proposition and states of affai...
January 05, 2017 at 23:55
I can not make any sense out of this. First, saying that facts exist is a category error because "the problems with saying that facts exist or that ac...
January 05, 2017 at 23:46
Not that I can make any sense out of why spiritual reality wouldn't be factual, but so then you'd say that spiritual truths do not fit under correspon...
January 05, 2017 at 23:34
By being present/occurrent. They're states of affairs that obtain. There is no difference. They're synonyms. You didn't explain why it's a category er...
January 05, 2017 at 23:32
Wait, why on your view is it a category error to say that facts exist?
January 05, 2017 at 23:28
Are spiritual truths truths by virtue of being a relationship between a proposition and states of affairs under your framework?
January 05, 2017 at 23:27
I'm asking it because you're turning out to say that truth and falsehood are the same thing I said they were vis-a-vis being a relation between propos...
January 05, 2017 at 23:22
Where--in this thread. Okay, so the only difference between what I wrote and what you wrote is the parenthetical "(judgment of)", right?
January 05, 2017 at 23:18
Could you answer first if you realize that that's what I said above?
January 05, 2017 at 23:13
You realize that what I said above was that truth and falsehood are (judgments of) the relation of a proposition to states of affairs (on corresponden...
January 05, 2017 at 23:07
"Real" is mind-independent, extramental, or "outside of minds." I just have no idea what that would be saying. What would it be for a concept to "have...
January 05, 2017 at 22:43
I'm just asking him questions about his view (with the upshot that eventually it would explain so he (and you) could understand why truth and facts ar...
January 05, 2017 at 22:29
Well, facts, or "factuality" if you like, are states of affairs. So non-facts, or "non-factuality" would be, what--"non-states of affairs"?
January 05, 2017 at 22:16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5MOMckrkn8
January 05, 2017 at 21:34
No one said it was your term. What you said was: "There can be non-factuality." I was asking you how there can be non-factuality.
January 05, 2017 at 21:28
I actually don't agree with this first premise. I think that evolution by natural selection provides the impetus for a lot of features, but a lot of o...
January 05, 2017 at 21:08
More, "If you were to inventory everything there is, you'd have only particulars on your list" That way we avoid whether anything is interacting with ...
January 05, 2017 at 20:50
The old "scientization" drive under slightly different language. Philosophy can't somehow "become science." What makes the two different is that they ...
January 05, 2017 at 20:28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGlcAdNqmXM
January 05, 2017 at 19:51
What would be objective, physical evidence of DNA or a computer, or detail of a computer, that's an abstraction? What would you point to so that you'r...
January 05, 2017 at 19:10
Re your earlier post, too, there are a number of things I should clear up. And I should have cleared all of this up a few days ago. I overlooked it as...
January 05, 2017 at 19:08
Abstractions/concepts are particular, concrete phenomena in brains. Mentality is simply specific dynamic brain states.
January 05, 2017 at 14:43
I don't see it as either reasonable or unreasonable. And I wouldn't say that's something that matters for it.
January 05, 2017 at 14:37
When I ask you how non-factuality obtains ontologically, I'm asking you how can there be non-factuality, how is there such a thing, in what manner doe...
January 05, 2017 at 14:35
The capacity for it, but again, I'd say that it doesn't occur if it's not conscious mental content. Not unless it seems like they aren't, but that doe...
January 05, 2017 at 01:37
This is incorrect. According to relativism, a murderer isn't wrong per some absolute. That in no way implies that he's not wrong per some relative mor...
January 05, 2017 at 00:04
I wouldn't say that wondering how the golden rule could even exist at all "standing on its own" would be tangential to the issue of whether it stands ...
January 05, 2017 at 00:01
I asked you: You responded as if you were unfamiliar with that terminology. So I worded it differently for you, which was the post in question. That w...
January 04, 2017 at 22:35
The post after you asked that question was an explanation of what that referred to. Okay, so false propositions and non-factual propositions are synon...
January 04, 2017 at 21:57
No--how could it "stand on its own" where it's "indifferent" to what people think etc. about it? How could it even exist at all in that case? Where wo...
January 04, 2017 at 20:13
Nominalists are not saying that regularlities of behavior are limited to one particular object. So again, what you wrote there is compatible with nomi...
January 04, 2017 at 20:00
I understand why you're saying that, but it seems wrong. However, I have to think about it further to explore how I'd analyze the problem there. Ah--o...
January 04, 2017 at 19:44
Moral judgments are how individuals feel about behavior (leaving out the qualifying details there). When some moral stance, like the golden rule, say,...
January 04, 2017 at 19:39
But do you understand that no one is saying that it's right because of mass appeal or because of legislation? What people are saying insofar as either...
January 04, 2017 at 18:57
Okay, but how would that even be in dispute? It's obvious that folks with the right influence/power in a society are the ones that entrench ethical st...
January 04, 2017 at 18:34
There's no restriction that definitions can't be single words. But the idea is that the definiens has to be synonymous with the definiendum, however m...
January 04, 2017 at 18:18