Banno

Fish, if you want to have a proper discussion about non-actuals, then why not start a thread? Or we could have a debate - that would be fun, and I hav...

Hello, James. The trouble with physics and philosophy is that they are quite difficult. It looks easy, but one keeps finding out that one has gone ast...

Yeah, so the OP posits a shock wave and asked a question about it, but does not tell us what the shock wave might be. The thread then proceeds by choo...

Better, it's the set of things that exist. It's not a member of itself. Existence does not have the property of existing. Ike red is the set of all th...

That does not follow.

Space and time have properties. Hence they exist. Existence does not have properties. It cannot properly be said to exist.

oh not as a synonym. As an indication of conviction.

SO if Moore had held up a hand and said "I am certain that this is a hand", rather than "I know...", he would have avoided Wittgenstein's criticism, b...

Good - I am glad I hadn't missed something so important. I'd ask you to consider OC 191. It seems to me he is here directly contradicting the contenti...

Why don't folk do paragraphs anymore? I ain't reading that.

You took that roll upon yourself when you posited the OP and your second post. All I'm doing is attempting to get to to follow through on the conseque...

I prefer to call taking ideas apart Analysis. Hence, analytic philosophy is the unknotting of confusion.

Yawn.

Too often it is the end point as well. Any lucidity shines in the removal of the confusion.

Fuck I'm sick of folk arguing by posting YouTube videos. Use Your Words!

The problem with how @"daniel j lavender" uses "infinity" is much the same as with "existence".

Did he? Where?

Philosophers are just confused. There's no glory in confusion.

But I have nothing in my pocket... so there is nothing and hence nothing exists.

Ah. There's the problem. Here's a tired old example for you to think about. Suppose you attempted to play chess against an opponent who moved the piec...

How amusingly ironic that in your thread titled "the poverty of expertise" you are reduced to appealing to your profession. I asked how disabilities f...

You've not made a cogent point this last page. Go back to this: And make your reply compelling.

SO what? Things that exist may have quantity or extent; but existence does not have quantity or extent. Individual existents may have duration, but ex...

Again, the logic has a sort of pseudo-Aristotelian feel. The parsing is improper.

Always leave the quantifier hanging. Then you make no commitment.

:wink: :up:

You don't have access to Wikipedia?

The best way to approach the growing number of threads is to point out that the logic they are using has been superseded. Existence is not a thing. He...

The thread is on a par with talk of what it is to be a "real" man. Real men would not participate.

That's a wee bit disingenuous. Sure, take responsibility for your own health care. That's not all you have said, though. You've blown a simple suggest...

Use and mention? Are you suggesting Tolkien mentioned Hobbits but did not use them?

I don't share the popular infatuation with the evolving mind. It doesn't seem to me to impact on the sort of conceptual work that is the province of p...

Cool. SO how do those with disabilities fit your scheme?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/515589

Yeah, I can. This is not a dream. It's too persistent, too detailed. To know something is commonly held to be to have a justified true belief in it. I...

It's the same for paper money. It's the same for ownership of any sort. But off topic.

"A hobbit walked into Mordor" is true in the domain of Lord of the Rings. IF he didn't walk in to Mordor, then how was the ring destroyed? Moreover, t...

Thanks.

Damn. I could write several posts on the errors in the first paragraph alone. But I don't think such direct criticism will be useful here. Instead, I ...

I use Queen, "Another one bites the dust".

I, me, mine.

Indeed, better I had said he does not respect facts. He's a bullshitter, in the true philosophical sense.

Nup. A 'complex series of variable repetitions' is a pattern.

I'm in broad agreement with this. I just don't think it entails platonic realism, nor that The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natura...

I would have said shit-wind-bag —blatherskite.

But since you do not recognise facts, you will simply disagree with whatever I say is factual - an invitation to play tag. You've done this repeatedly...

Is the pattern the thread or the shirt?

What's happening here is a confusion about quantification. Actualists suppose that everything that exists is actual. But there are several ways of usi...

No. That's just an invitation to play your rhetorical cat-and-mouse game. Again, I invite all who are interested to take a scroll through your posting...

@"Wayfarer" - not sure where we were up to. How did the self-training course go?