Terrapin Station

Are you an Aspie?

Your loss. <shrug>

For one, there are no facts regarding whether something is good or not. It rather refers to a way that we feel.

The problem with this is that you're using "true" to refer to two completely different ideas, and you're expecting the different ideas to be clear via...

Wouldn't statements then be true because they correspond to something that is "true"? If so, then true should refer to statements corresponding. But i...

If you realize that values are subjective, why would you even look for something objective to recommend them? Isn't that looking in the wrong place in...

Wouldn't we be any and everything that we do?

So the thing that's false is a proposition. "The cat is on the mat" is a proposition, and that's what you're saying is false. So why wouldn't what's t...

"We" as in S, EricH, etc. and I, as well as analytic philosophers in general. And that "what" is what exactly ontologically? What sort of thing is it?

Okay, but that's not how we're using the word "true." We're using the word "true" to ONLY refer to propositions matching states of affairs. Since thos...

Basically states of affairs are relations of existent things, as well as properties of existent things. Things exist, they have properties, and they a...

I explained this to you already. How something corresponds is that there's a cat, for example, sitting on a mat, and we say, "The cat is on the mat." ...

Yeah, basically "If solipsism is true, then only I exist or at least I can only know that I exist. But I don't believe this. So either solipsism isn't...

Kick a rock.

To whom? Good/bad are always to someone. Different someones will feel that the same thing is good or bad. There's no correct answer. It just tells us ...

Well, those are things that have to be imagined when you watch films that books usually force-feed to you.

I like Faith No More and Patton okay, but I'm not a very big fan. I was just making a point about the criteria being suggested.

I said something very specific/qualified about that. Hence you demonstrating poor reading comprehension.

I'd never use the phrase "take seriously," and I've not said anything even slightly supportive of Rand.

First, we need to not conflate definitions and meaning. Or, at least we need to not conflate text or sound strings with meaning. If a text string were...

Seriously Patton has a wider range than Elton and Whitney.

What about descriptions including relations, character's thoughts, other connections between things (such as how they're related implicationally, plot...

People can only have better judgment in the sense of us preferring their judgment though, right?

So you're not actually equating increased range with better singing then.

Wouldn't you think that someone like Mike Patton is better, then? He has a wider vocal range than Whitney and Elton. He's the singer on the album belo...

What would be some examples of music that you think is some of the best because of an extended pitch range?

It's weird that you'd not understand what I wrote contextually. The whole point of the first part is that a book qua a book (not qua our experience of...

One thing I wanted to clarify is if you were looking to correlate it to effort, work put in, etc. So I suppose not? Aside from that, do you think that...

How would you suggest we quantify skill?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHlLk5m0S4o

I never read that. Again, you can type as much as you want--of course. It's just that I'm not about to read more than what I quote from you. "As poor ...

That's not at all the case. You have really poor reading comprehension, as you've demonstrated over and over again.

You're saying it's not important to you 15 minutes later then? Not that you literally can't recall it?

Meaning is subjective for example. It only occurs in persons' heads.

So literally you might watch a film and forget it 15 minutes later?

So were you just saying that each individual might prefer some people as judges, where different individuals might prefer different people?

How does this happen ontologically?

I think Rand blows. It's just that that's not the only reason she's not part of the academic philosophy canon. Tons of stuff in the canon blows.

Tons of stuff that's in the canon consists of low quality arguments.

Morality isn't invented. It comes from the simple fact that there is behavior towards others (including yourself) that you're okay with versus behavio...

If you were to read something for just 90-100 minutes, say, and then not read it again, or if you were to listen to a piece of music just once and not...

It's important to be familiar with it if you want to be familiar with analytic philosophy, and especially the developmental history of analytic philos...

You can't have a judgment anywhere but in an individual's mind.

If you're a human being, which is something determined by biological facts, then however you think is a way that human beings think, and whatever it m...

By what criteria?

That's one of the very few films I've ever been tempted to walk out of. I hate Malick.

Books are just sets of marks on paper. Films are just sets of shapes, colors and sounds. To understand either, you need to think about what you're see...

That's not the only reason, though. Surely you don't think that everything that's "taken seriously" by philosophy departments, peer-reviewed journals,...

Plenty of people think that. They're wrong. There's no (ontological) difference between "That is good" and "I like that." Right, it's part of there be...

Some people might mistakenly believe that's what they're doing, but there are no objective qualities in that vein. Saying that something is good is re...