Terrapin Station

Sigh--there's no argument for P2. P2 needs an argument. (I don't agree with P1, either, by the way. That's not what a fact is. But what's more importa...

My ideal regime? I'm king.

That's not (2) it's (4). (2) would be "The conventional sense of 'fact' is thing we ought to believe." "and we ought to believe true things" is saying...

Wait, is he somehow arguing that "it's all language" (a la "it's turtles all the way down") and that no language is actually referring to anything oth...

That's fine, but it doesn't have anything to do with the problem with the argument you presented. The argument you presented went like this: "If there...

I have PMN handy here. A lot of it isn't about phil of language or anything that Rorty is characterizing as "nonrepresentationalism" specifically re p...

Do you understand the difference between what "fact" refers to and what "thing we ought to believe" refers to? It's important that you can grasp somet...

I don't recall either calling any phil of language stance "antirepresentationalism." Can you be a bit more specific with a reference? (Again, I'm assu...

It doesn't go on forever. "Fact" does NOT refer to "thing we ought to believe," Period. If one feels that we ought to believe facts, that's fine. But ...

Re the other comment, I wrote this above: "What's something you'd recommend on nonrepresentationalism, though? I'll read it and comment to you as I do...

You claimed that the title of this thread rejects "axioms of" naive realism. No it does not. Because naive realism has no correlation to relative vs a...

Is that a response to this: "If we don't have objective/observable expectancy, then (a) how do we have a social form of that? and (b) how are we getti...

I already pointed out to you that existence being relative, not absolute has no correlation to realism/idealism. Maybe you disagreed with me, but then...

?? Facts aren't conventionally defined as "things we ought to believe." Many people do feel that we ought to believe facts, but that's not what a fact...

If we don't have objective/observable expectancy, then (a) how do we have a social form of that? and (b) how are we getting to external meaning?

Which thesis are we referring to there? And if it rejects naive realistic "axioms," is it a worthwhile thesis?

How would you have objective (or more simply, observable) expectancy? What's something you'd recommend on nonrepresentationalism, though? I'll read it...

So, when the word "cat" is socially acquired, for example, what's actually acquired is the sound "cat" or the set of letters c-a-t if it's writing ins...

I'm a subjectivist on meaning. Meaning resides in heads. It's not social. It's mental. There's no social mentality. Not sure what that would amount to...

I'll keep an eye open for one. I'll send you a cookie.

I don't believe that getting more food to people who have trouble acquiring broadly nutritional food has anything to do with problems with resource us...

Rovelli isn't ringing any bells offhand. Re "representationalism vs nonrepresentationalism" in phil of language, I'm not familiar enough with all of t...

Yeah, I'm familiar with that. I just don't agree with treating non-human animals as more or less akin to humans ethically, and I don't at all agree wi...

"Equal non ethical status" in my view. I don't see meat-eating as an ethical issue.

First, I am a realist. Secondly, realism does not at all imply non-relativity. I don't at all agree with Bohr.

This again seems like conflating concepts and what they're concepts of/in response to. I'm not sure why you're doing that.

Not an ethical issue in my opinion.

If only you'd share one.

My issue with PCism/SJWism is an issue with desires to control others--their behavior, including their speech, especially when it amounts to controlli...

My first thought is this: why is it apparently so difficult to not conflate concepts and what they're concepts of (or in response to)? I'm not disagre...

Any problem, anything to solve, is going to be about our curiosity or understanding (wanting to know or understand something we currently don't), or w...

Re the first part of your post, by the way, I'd say that with something like knowledge, the whole point is to analyze what the term is conventionally ...

The ulterior motive seems to be thinly-veiled, ad hoc religious support. (His whole spiel in general that is.) He's like the "romantic" counterpart to...

This reads like you didn't have a dissertation advisor. Did you?

He seems to be using "first cause" to refer to intentional motivation.

That's only the case if it's vacuously the case. In other words, it's only the case if by "acting," we're referring (by definitionally limiting the te...

Concepts are concrete things. It's likely the case for everyone that a concept of nonexistence only arises after a concept of existence. I wouldn't sa...

Then how can you make a comment about whether I understand the definition of support?

Maybe not. What was supposed to be the support for it?

That's an unsupported claim.

Why would someone become a "mystic"?

Nothing to do with the topic, but I like the new avatar. Curiously, for some reason I was just thinking about Wacky Packages yesterday, thinking I nee...

Right, but there can't be anywhere that God is not located then. Including every cell of bodies, ever elementary particle, etc. Re Akron, I was born i...

If you're simply positing a God of some sort, why not be explicit about that? I'm an atheist. So I don't buy that there's "a watcher of changes beyond...

If you're just using it to refer to things interacting with each other that's simple enough.

At least half of the time when people use "unity" in a philosophical context I still have no idea what they're referring to, exactly. It's typically v...

The idea isn't that every location is the entirety of God. But God needs to be present at every location for omnipresence. But yeah, a lot of this stu...

If you're interested in someone like me reading past what I'm quoting, it's for you to explain. You're not required to explain things, of course, but ...

"it" is "non-local substratum"? That's what I'm asking you about. I'm asking you what "non-local substratum" would amount to. I don't know how we can ...

It's not in space, and it's everywhere in space (as well as time, but only in the "non-relative" sense), because the spatial is a subset of the non-sp...