Terrapin Station

I'm not sure you understood what I wrote. Did what I write come off as an endorsement of Rand for some reason?

No it isn't. What are you claiming the difference is?

I'd say why you should value art is because you like it as art, for its (more or less) formal properties. (I only say "more or less" there because con...

We'd better start recruiting if that's the goal.

Not really, because I don't really buy the idea of "psychological weapons," especially with respect to people who are more or less strangers. If someo...

Exactly.

Again, as I remarked above, Quine's comments here are building upon Russell's theory of descriptions. Quine's comments are not going to make much sens...

Ah, a link to other threads specifically for my answer. For one, I'm pretty sure the last time it came up the thread was deleted. The mods seem to get...

Elitism isn't about judgments per se--it's not about liking/disliking things, or what specific things one likes or dislikes. Elitism is about one's at...

I was saying you need that if you want to know the purpose the artist had in mind, if any, for the art. You can't glean the purpose from the art itsel...

I didn't respond to that because it made no sense to me. What relevance would a "link" be first off?

"Be good little conformist robots"

I think it's mostly looked at as a combo of making concessions because: (1) the kid has to go to the toilet (2) the kid is often uncomfortable going i...

Not much mystery to the way the questions are going to align with the results there!

"You also never responded . . ."

So, even taking that at face value, what is "weapony" about it?

I'm stumped at what that response has to do with the simple question I was asking.

You already responded to that. I was hoping you'd answer, "So that's a more specific idea, no?"

You also never responded to me asking you about the claim about Shakepeare, etc. being "taken seriously." Let's solve one thing at a time. So we don't...

You didn't comment, by the way, on the fact that (c) (i) has nothing to do with her views of other philosophers. You had just said that's all it was a...

It's an impression of her quality as a philosopher, which is about argumentation.

What does (c)(i) have to do with other thinkers?

(c) is about the assessment of her content.

No, I didn't. That was part of the reasons that I gave. I only read the above by the way. One thing at a time. Of course, you can type and blah blah b...

No. Not unless it's against someone's will.

You just need to have a non-Aspie understanding of "create."

I'd tell people to talk (and think) for themselves . . .unless they have big secrets they don't want to reveal, I suppose.

Okay, but folks might be curious re your comment that "The reasons are that we have ideals, desires, goals, etc. and we can judge whether some things ...

If only I agreed with Putnam. :wink:

Are you figuring that only you and I will ever read this? You don't want to reveal the answer to others who might read the thread, and thus share your...

What does me knowing what it means have to do with anything? Don't you know so that you can correct it to the narrower version that's right? Otherwise...

How would we narrow it while saying something accurate?

That doesn't seem to be using "necessary" in the right way. The definition could be different than it is. The chemical composition could have turned o...

What I was answering is why Rand isn't taught in an academic phil context. You're agreeing that the authors you mentioned aren't taught in an academic...

It doesn't work as a necessary identity (if that's what he was arguing--I don't recall). The only way rigid designators work for me in general is in t...

Right--that was my point. It seems to me that it should be a contingent property of water, where the chemical make-up would be potentially different i...

I forgot how that's supposed to work a la Kripke. It seems to me that "H2O" would normally turn out to be something like "the first chancellor of the ...

This seems very wonky to me, but maybe you mean something more limited by "pointing to an object" than I would mean?

The idea that anyone in any bathroom is a "violation of privacy" seems ridiculous to me.

Which of those authors are you claiming are taught in philosophy departments as philosophers?

The reasons are that we have ideals, desires, goals, etc. and we can judge whether some things meet them, no?

Sure. That all seems pretty obvious, I'd say.

So if you're not claiming that there are objective purposes, and that art has one, then when you say "Art has a purpose," what you're really saying is...

In the spirit of solving one thing at a time: Didn't I write the word "initially"?

Maybe. What do you believe I'm not comprehending?

Hence "typically." For the first part, it's not a demarcation criterion, just a property that science typically has. I didn't think you were asking fo...

It seems weird and very naive to me that there would have ever been many people, especially educated people, who didn't see politicians/heads of state...

Is it that you're not capable of something like a philosophical discussion about this? Maybe you don't know how to support it?

That would be better than the anti-conversation you're having. How about putting on your big boy pants and trying to have a real conversation about th...

Of course, you could just post stupid stuff in a very OCDish way like a jackass, too. I guess that works . . . for something.