And? I don't "distinguish epistemics from epistemology", so you are wrong? You want your cake and to eat it, by supposing that belief and thought are ...
There'd be a naive objection along the lines that all Russell had done is avoid the issue by re-defining "future"; that the sentence "In the future, p...
Existential crises as a reaction to trauma? A bit tangential, perhaps. While that might explain the motive, it doesn't resolve the incoherence. Indeed...
Sounds strained. This post exists. We might proceed from that, without the constipation. My apologies, Dogbert. There is a rash of really poor idealis...
The next section shows the structural similarity between Prior's objection and Pp ? FPp That some sentence was true in past implies that in the future...
Downunder, our agrarian National Party just dropped its net zero emissions policy, while record-breaking storms dropped 9cm hail on some of the riches...
Fragile masculinity, on some accounts. The need for control overwhelms rationality. In all truth some perhaps cannot see what is problematic in this v...
They are? A believe is, one way or another, held to be true. But not all thoughts are held to be true. We can certainly entertain thoughts that are no...
With the trans folk or the ones doing the anti-trans posting? As @"Tom Storm" pointed out, Bob Ross is clearly here to justify his authoritarian, cons...
Yep. Existence is taken as granted, not demonstrated. There's something extraordinarily compromised about a view that seeks to demonstrate "existence"...
I and others have tried to show that you have adopted a muddled approach to the topic. You appear not to have been able to see the problem with your a...
Hopefully we can translate the structure of the proof into knitting, line by line. "Suppose ? is a satisfiable set of R-preserved sentences and \delta...
Russell moves from the specific cases so far examined to the general case. Start with a formal language L, containing a sentence ?. All the language c...
It's not that we can't "give a definition" so much as that definitions do not do what you think they do. Others have carried the point. I'm sorry you ...
So you seem to have something like 'You cannot skip eating, or you will die.' Fundamental Purpose = Service Target (One's Own Group) × Final State the...
But statement A does not tell us what we ought do. It only sets out the consequence of a certain action. In order to reach the conclusion "You ought n...
I'm not so sure. For instance, Martha Nussbaum's response to rigid Aristotelian essentialism would be critical, despite her drawing heavily on Aristot...
Here again is that presumptive pseudo-Aristotelianism, rife in the forums at present. It smuggles in a theological conclusion under the guise of metap...
You began this discussion by giving your conclusion. There's the bad faith that continues in your new posts. There's the misapplication of Gadamer. En...
You have to say that. You have to re-assert your arbitrarily chosen essence, your self- reinforcing monologue. You do the same thing here: points to t...
You provide the evidence: In this, you presume the consequence of the dialogue. My point is that your ‘fusion of horizons’ isn’t faithful to Gadamer’s...
You've doubled down on the invulnerability of theology. That response reinforces my fear that you are dealing in bad faith. Show that your faith in Ch...
It's not AI; but these days, your conclusion is justified. It's "Arm", steam-bent oak, by Clark Bardsley Design, from Auckland, New Zealand. Nice work...
The barriers to entailment here concern logical implication. ?, ?, ?, ? and that sort of thing. We can make use of Bayesian methods. But tomorrow migh...
We can stipulate whatever definitions we want. And provided we keep in mind that they are stipulations, that's fine. But what I would do is set out fo...
No one should be under the illusion that Bob or Leon will change their minds as a result of the discussion here. Our posts are a performance, to an au...
Yes, I have. You expect me to provide you with essences of sex and gender, failing to see that this very question is dependent on your essentialist fr...
The difference is in the direction of fit. In science we change what we say to match the way things are. In ethics we change how things are to match w...
It was behind my old thread, Demarcating theology, or, what not to post to Philosophy of Religion. But you might well start a secular version... In so...
Just to be clear, if this were my forum, I'd have removed this thread and blocked Bob and Leon. But this is not my forum. And I have no desire for it ...
That wasn't clear from what I have already said? Meaning is found in use, so there is always some ambiguity. But here we can be pretty explicit. An ex...
That does not match my understanding. Latin culture worship the phallus, denigrating the passive participant in intercourse. It wasn't being homosexua...
Comments