In the language of those who understand "correspondence" to mean "talks about an existing state" it does. For this language, "correspondence" means "i...
The issue, as I see it, is this renders the whole controversy over "correspondence" to nothing more than a confusion of speaking in different language...
It's about protecting a certain understanding above all others at any cost. The "universal" is proposed to suggest that, within a given set of knowled...
I'd say the trick is that the experience of speaking is separate to that of observing. For many people "correspondence" really means "talks about." Th...
Not phenomena. How could there be meaningful unknowns if logical content was phenomena? Unknowns need a logical content (that which someone is unaware...
It strikes me you are not distinguishing between the ethical, that something is right or wrong, and the causal, when are humans caused to act rightly ...
I’d say the attraction many people have to universals is on account of everything not in everyday life. Universals are about specifying a logic rule w...
That belief is the position you know the Sasquatch exists without having the empirical evidence which shows it to be the case. Yes... and that's what ...
Those are actually a contradiction. How can one believe it is true (understand) that God does or doesn't exist if there is no knowledge about God to b...
The quote you cited as embarrassing earlier has a pretty good example: "It might be objected that we need Saturn to say what Saturn is; that we cannot...
You still aren't making the distinction between the conception and object here. You are treating it like the existence of the object grants the existe...
It really isn't. The essay is saying the exact opposite: anything which may be known is, by definition, conceptual.- i.e. of concepts. Brassier argume...
C5 is actually embedded in P9. P9 /P10 should read something like: "The only way to prevent the gratuitous suffering caused to animals in the food pro...
Namely that the "object" is functioning as a simplified account of something else. Consider the object of a book. It is a collection of many individua...
I think Quine comments on meaningless strongly allude to the account of the peculiarity. "What is?" in the "philosophical sense" is really about conte...
The problem is not knowledge of one's life. People always know about their lives and think about them in some way. That's part of living, of existing ...
Insofar as I'm aware of Berkeley (I haven't done a deep study of him), he is misunderstood frequently. There is actually clue to this in the claim of ...
Indeed. Which is what makes your argument that the worthy life necessary involves self-examination so egregious. Your "third person" pontifications ab...
I know you did... but that's not how they function. This is the same sort of "natural fallacy" you are making in the other thread. You treat an expres...
Utter falsehood, Agustino. The bank robber gives you the choice between the evils of dying or handing over someone else's money. A torturer gives you ...
But you don't, Agustino. You think you do, but you have no commitment to actually opposing the self-interest in the realm of values, culture and under...
They are... in a sense. The problem is that sometimes there are no good options. Sometimes people are putting in a situation where they cannot do good...
I know. That's why I mentioned it. You are contradicting yourself. You have no moral integrity here. You wax lyrical about giving-up one's interest fo...
A person's self-interest is not always what is good. Sometimes the world (and the person in question) would be better if a person didn't pursue what t...
Someone does not have to know that their life is worth living in comparison to another, to live well. Some people live well without engaging a process...
The problem is that the emotional/conceptual distinction is a bit of a red-herring (the difference you are really talking about is between talking abo...
As someone who is rather selfish, who tends to be interested in their own projects rather than the people around me (at least in a practical sense), I...
There is a deeper reason for the slippage: if one avoids illegitimately conflating ideatum and object, while still trying to maintain conceptual meani...
The question is a mistake in the first instance. Relationships like e=mc2 are an expression of the functioning empirical world. To ask whether, for ex...
That's... in a pile, Agustino. I know that. The problem is not that you claimed it. It is that you are thinking it. Your position is that you can unde...
A rather unfortunate place for me to miss I had missed a "y." I was saying "many sand grains together. Piles of sand are only soft when there are many...
No, that's an axiom or tautology. If we accept that P1 is true, which we are in the context of the meaning of your argument, then there is no possibil...
I know you don't know how it works, invizzy. How about that for some "rudeness?" I've seen you do this all the time. You play convoluted words games a...
But it's not a valid logical argument because you have not concluded P1./C. You've just asserted all As are only Bs. It's a tautology. You haven't sho...
They aren't. P1. says the same thing as C. through the "only." Since only As are Bs, you've already said all Bs are As. If there was to be a B which i...
My point is that C. is merely a restatement of P1. You are merely asserting P1./C. P2 doesn't give any conclusion about either A or B. You don't have ...
P1. and C are useless there. You already said everything in C. in P1. (all and ONLY As are Bs- i.e. The entire set of B is As). P2. is just a meaningl...
It's also an admission of their own wilful ignorance. If I hold the position I am talking to a different person, my perspective holds it does not exha...
That's exactly what we never have. Each meaning of an thing (including "relations" to other objects- e.g. the computer screen is 50 is cm away form my...
Ethical significance is not seen with one's eyes. It's a feature of an object which is understood. It's not understood in the act of looking at an obj...
You are making the mistake of thinking everything about a thing must be related in the intellect. It doesn't. People may know about something and, whi...
In which case "deriving" is irrelevant. Ethics doesn't require it. Understanding it doesn't require it, for the moment we pick-up on ethical expressio...
I'm not using states of existence to derive anything though, Agustino. Nowhere am I claiming something is good or bad because it exists. Rather, I'm s...
You aren't thinking clearly. My point with "immanence" was to point out how ethical significance is an expression of states of the world (i.e. an "is"...
That's not deriving an "ought" for "is." It describing an ought expressed in an is. Morality is not coming out of existence, as your naturalistic nons...
No, they really can't, Agustino. It's logically incoherent. There are plenty of ethical arguments made on the grounds of existing states. We do it all...
The problem is not that that you are claiming a person ought to be some way, Agustino. Rather it is the very terms of the discourse you are using don'...
This is the naturalistic fallacy, Agustino. The idea there is a such thing as "deviation" in human nature, as that must a priori, suppose what humans ...
That is, shall we say, old fashioned, but this difference has more to do with the what's discussed and what's hasn't been talked about than it does di...
Comments