Terrapin Station

No they're not, unless they explicitly say that. They're simply pointing out that the person is making a conflation, because that's all there seems to...

It depends on who the professor is. Heidegger as a student, writing as he's famous for, when I was teaching Intro to Philosophy courses, wouldn't have...

What I'm asking you is whether you wouldn't say that his argument is rational. For example, aren't these two sentences in conjunction an example of ra...

Shouldn't that last phrase have been "because the separation is mistaken"? And yeah, I'd agree that if someone is arguing that the separation is mista...

Are you not familiar with Aquinas' five proofs? Here's the first for example: The question isn't whether that proves that God exists--obviously I don'...

Wouldn't that have to be something like "'outside' (outsideness a la spatial location being merely an idea) of one's own set of ideas."

Wait though--if ontologically cleaving perception and what the perception is of is question-begging from a perspective of idealism, why isn't ontologi...

You'd have in mind something very different than I do by "rationality" if you don't consider Aquinas' five proofs, for example, to be examples of rati...

Ummm . . . skip

I can't conceive of religious beliefs not having a rational component. That's because I wouldn't even characterize them as beliefs without a rational ...

I don't find any religious philosophy at all convincing in its metaphysical claims. It's rather that especially when it comes to academic work, I enjo...

Why are you always focusing on proof?

Or, I didn't answer it so that you consider the response satisfactory. The whole point of my comments to you on this is to demonstrate the problem wit...

?? I didn't say anything like that. This particular tangent was simply in response to me saying: I didn't say anything about that being "reasonable." ...

Odd thing to say to me if you've read many of my posts. But you don't perceive value. That's because value is simply something you do.

It depends on the truth theory someone is using.

You know there was more to my sentence than that, right?

Back for a minute. Is that what you're striving for--for us to agree?

Haha--I'll be away for a bit, but I can continue later.

But changing the topic to that if you want: first, truth value hinges on contingent facts when that's how an individual assesses truth value. In other...

Above, I wasn't saying something about truth value of statements first off.

Consequences on a statement??? (In other words, I have no idea what you'd be asking)

Yes, of course.

I'm not forwarding a mathematical or logical argument in the context of a particular species of mathematics or logic. I'm referring to contingent, emp...

It depends on what we're referring to.

It would only be exactly the same if x were a variable representing "truth" and y were a variable representing "subjective."

Sorry, I should have hit quote on that one rather than just hitting "reply." You had said: To which I responded, "I didn't think you did, did I?"

I didn't think you did, did I?

Sure. Then what happened to asking what I was curious about and trying to answer it?

Clarity is different than attitude. By the latter, I'm merely referring to a "that's too bad" response to not addressing what I'm curious about.

It's difficult to have a conversation when one of the participants has that sort of attitude.

Unfortunately it doesn't at all address what I'm curious about.

That's nice, but it's not what I'm curious about.

Okay. So on your view some letters of the alphabet are properties and some are not?

Yes, of course. Saying that something is subjective is simply saying that it has a particular locational property.

Are you saying that the letter of the alphabet y is somehow a property that the letter of the alphabet x can have?

Okay and then y likewise refers to the letter of the alphabet y?

The letter of the alphabet x?

I'd have to have some idea what x is referring to in order to start. So what is x referring to?

Can the broken record say what x is referring to?

No I didn't. I asked you what x was referring to.

So the sentence would be "All all x are y are y?" And then maybe "All all all x are y are y are y?" Etc.?

What objective fact?

In other words, what is x referring to--the letter of the alphabet?

What is it even referring to? Are you saying something about letters of the alphabet qua letters of the alphabet?

Yeah, I don't know what the heck Willow was thinking on that one.

??? That wouldn't make it a logical contradiction.

So your claim is that most people wouldn't read "anything and everything is possible" any differently than "all possible things are possible"?

I'm not saying anything pro or con about "determinate" (especially because I don't even know what it would be to say something pro or con about it). I...

What in the world?