Terrapin Station

I don't believe that we have a very good idea what animals like dogs' minds are like, but I think it's safe to guess that they understand many things,...

You understand that propositions are not the actual words used, right?

How is that not a proposition?

How does it show that? Not by indicating something like "There (is) . . ."?

What meaning does it have?

Pointing your finger has no meaning?

As I JUST SAID: They want the person to MAKE A STATEMENT

Functionally? They want the person to make a statement that matches the facts.

You're not at all comprehending the idea that philosophical analysis is NOT a reporting of how someone happens to think about a term re their beliefs ...

I would say that philosophical analysis of a term like "truth" is largely an analysis of how the term functions in normal usage, relative to coherence...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwh2QloOnS0

Which implies, "Category errors can not occur in normal language usage." Do you really want to claim that? And would you be claiming it as a definitio...

I think it makes a lot of sense, as I explained in that post. I rather don't think it makes much sense to say that truth and falsehood would be a comp...

In my opinion, and I'm not at all putting myself "above" this, philosophy tends to be ad hoc justifications/rationalizations of views that people alre...

That's not the case on the standard view re analytic philosophy that I'm referring to and operating in the context of. Facts are simply not at all the...

No, not at all.

?? Realism requires what?

The similarity is in the lack of an explanation for how/why something would work so that the predictive regularities in question would obtain rather t...

I addressed this with: Re this: The answer is that it's not a moral judgment regardless of what's addressed. What makes it a moral judgment is that it...

Wait--you were talking about ice cream flavors being morally good or bad?? At any rate, sure, I consider behavior towards oneself to be a moral issue ...

I wouldn't say it does if it has nothing to do with ethics. There's a commonality, I suppose, in that we're talking about preferences, but gustatory p...

No, but I wasn't suggesting that I was disproving moral objectivism either. I was explaining an alternate point of view. In my opinion, there's no que...

Wait--why are you talking about ice cream flavors being good or bad? That has nothing to do with ethics. Ethics is about interpersonal behavior that p...

You didn't seem to understand the post you're responding to at all. To start with, I say that concern with proof/disproof and certainty is misplaced. ...

Reads like propaganda/an advertisement to me.

The concerns with proof/disproof and certainty are misplaced in my opinion. Empirical claims are not provable, falsification is problematic a la the D...

Wait, so objects are what's rational in your view? Not the way we think about something?

I'm a moral relativist. More specifically, I'm a subjectivist/noncognitivist/basically an emotivist on morality/ethics. In other words, I believe that...

We'd probably talk past each other less if you'd just tell me how you'd define "rational." What makes something rational in your view?

Yes. To understand what I'm saying, first it's important to understand that I'm making a distinction between "truth" and "fact." Facts are states of a...

Okay--that could be. I wasn't paying much attention to what mosesquine said. I was speaking more generally.

I can't make sense out of that set of sentences. The biggest hurdle is the last sentence--"That doesn't follow." I don't get what's supposed to be fol...

theory x would be the theory in question. y is some incompatible theory, yours for example.

There's a very rudimentary scope problem in that criticism. All you're saying is that if it's true (under theory x--namely, the theory in question), t...

It's not like I have some stupid little 5, 10, 50 line argument for it or something like that. That's not how I formulate views or how I think they sh...

Yeah, it's an abbreviation for the decades worth of particular material, which understandably, I'm not going to write a set of books detailing it all ...

Decades of observations, thinking and doing philosophy about it. That's the same for all the other philosophers who've been around long enough for "de...

Which isn't what I said. I just said that everyone who has a different view about truth (such as me) also thinks that it's right. You think your view ...

So when you say "there's no possibility for different views with regards to truth/philosophy," you're not saying that there's literally no possibility...

There would be no way to square this with the actual body of stuff that is conventionally considered philosophy.

But then you've got rational arguments, so it's rational. As I asked a number of times, if you don't agree that "rational" refers to simply implicatio...

Don't skip step (6)

Here's a good recipe for no possibility of different views: (1) turn off your computer (2) make sure no one else is in your home (3) lock your doors (...

You only want stuff with no possibility of different views?

Sure as some would disagree obviously.

Right, but whether it succeeds in proving God is irrelevant for whether it's rational, no? Whether it's rational hinges on whether it involves implica...

Depends on who is assessing it, obviously.

It was just a lighthearted comment. I'll be skipping celibacy, thank you. :-) I know lighthearted comments are taboo in most threads. We're supposed t...

Okay, as I noted, I can't at all recall Berkeley's argument, if any, for this. It's been ages since I've read him. That's not actually an argument, it...

That's fine. Again, as I noted, I didn't expect that parallel to your response to be satisfactory to you. But that was just the point. I wouldn't say ...