I did not say there are no true propositions. Clearly there are. I said I think it is possible for there to be no true propositions. There's a world o...
Yes, I too worry about that and so made avoiding such equivocation a priority. However, it seems to me that such equivocation is what proponents of ot...
No, I don't see how anything I have said implies that. I think it is possible for there to be no true propositions. If that's inconsistent with my vie...
I agree that in order for a proposition to be true, there has to be a proposition (for that is self-evident to my reason and to the reason of virtuall...
The conclusion of my case is not that truth is constituted by some assertion of ours, but rather of Reason. So, it is when Reason - not you or I - ass...
The OP was started by me and you're free to ignore it. You are not experiencing oppression. And try to keep in check the oh so common desire to ban th...
But in the OP I provided an argument that appears to refute your view. For I provided an argument in support of the view that a proposition is true wh...
It depends on what the quality is. For example, take the quality of self-approval. Well, clearly if someone does not value a quality in themselves tha...
How? I have argued that what it is for a proposition to be true is for Reason to be asserting that its contents are the case. How can that possibly be...
I am sure that works wonders on drunks in bars, but I know what those words mean and it's nonsense. Something can be true and no-one believe it, and s...
No, not until you show me their relevance to the question. Whatever answer I give, it has no bearing on the credibility of my answer to the question "...
I haven't defined truth, so you're attacking a straw man. Until you provide some kind of an argument, that's like saying "truth is green" or "truth is...
Yes, that's my point - my point. So, you can't reject my argument on the grounds that I am appealing to reason, then, can you? Or that reason is unrel...
Please defend that claim without appealing to reason (which is impossible, of course, but that's the point - either you're just asserting things, whic...
Then you are not as reasonable as I am. I think our reason is our only guide to what's true. You, I suspect, like to put yourself in the mix as well a...
Yes, if you disagree - and are reasonable - you will make a case against my claim, rather than simply point out that I have made it. You can't make an...
That's the next question. It is the question it is appropriate to ask if my answer to the "what is truth?" question - namely that 'truth' is the prope...
I don't see the relevance. The question I am trying to answer is "what is truth?" Why truth is important is a distinct question. If you don't even kno...
And of course, as I have proposed an answer - namely, that truth is whatever Reason asserts to be the case - then we can sketch an answer to your ques...
Yes, I have read some of Benatar's work. And the philosopher Hugh Lafollette has written an article making essentially the same case I have made. Yes,...
I do not think this makes a big difference where justifying licencing is concerned. We licence pilots because of the terrible harm a totally incompete...
The policy does not have to make substantial assumptions about what the best kind of parenting involves, only what the worst kind involves. Just as dr...
I think the details would be for psychologists to sort out, not philosophers - but whatever criteria need to be met for adoption could just be applied...
Plus, to get the focus back on procreation (rather than on the issue of the justifiability of any and all licencing) - is there any reason why we shou...
That's quite an extreme position - and if you're opposed to licensing reproduction on grounds that would include being opposed to licensing pilots and...
You're against all licensing? There is really no substantial difference between licensing something and saying that 'doing this without satisfying cer...
Yes, I am aware of that - I am an idealist of Berkeley's sort. But he never made the above argument against physical reality (his argument was differe...
I am saying that much of what Stoics say is not philosophical, but psychological. However, I am not saying that 'all' of what they say is. Far from it...
I used your mind as an example of something simple - something unextended. But I am not thereby saying that you caused all else to exist, only that so...
No, Stoics also make the first - Socrates famously maintained that all wrongdoing was a product of ignorance and Zeno followed him in that belief. Plu...
You haven't followed the argument (or you have dismissed it as a 'rhetorical device'). The argument establishes the existence of simple things. If any...
It matters not just what someone says, but when they say it. You had already started to be rude at that point - started to talk about me, not the argu...
It has some premises in common, certainly. But the cosmological argument has 'Therefore, God exists" as its conclusion, whereas I am arguing that no p...
Yes, possibly, but then the Stoic makes their stand on grief banal. So, for instance, in reality it would appear that grief is sometimes rational, som...
My claim is not that Stoics are therapists, or that Stoicism is therapy, but that it is either therapy, or a collection of true, but banal ethical inj...
So, let's just be clear - because I'm getting a bit sick of the ugly combination of ignorance and self-righteous indignation that so many of you lot i...
I do not see a problem, just a dogma that - to those who cleave to it - generates a problem. Our reason gives us insight into the norms of Reason - th...
Hmm, I am not sure I follow. Perhaps I should say that I do not think anything exists with necessity, including God - I am a sceptic about necessity. ...
Hmm, I would say that the credibility of the claim that no extended thing can causally interact with an unextended thing is about the same as the clai...
I agree that the weakest premise in the argument is the one that asserts that extended things can only causally interact with other extended things. B...
Why are they distinct disciplines? Psychologists often make philosophical assumptions (often unnecessarily), and philosophers sometimes make psycholog...
Comments