Banno

You don't know? Fair enough.

Or the folk hereabouts might just ignore you, since you have said nothing philosophically interesting.

So much for cosmology, then. That is, your contention that we are ignorant is a bit too convenient to your position.

Trite. Instead, forget about meaning, especially meanings as references, and look to what we do with the words. To understand a word is just to be abl...

So then, what are they?

Try filling in the details of this argument. Why would you think this to be so?

So... there is no point in trying to understand god? Just believe? But if there is no way we can reason about god, then there is no reason to believe,...

That's quite an extraordinary bit of reasoning, that is. Astonishing.

Cool. God only tortures people he doesn't like. Can't see how this helps the case, though. Good people seem to be able to get by without torturing any...

Thanks for clarifying. Now it seems to me that there is no correct answer to the question "Can collections be infinite?" Rather, we can decide one way...

No it doesn't. It doesn't refer to anything by itself. Join it with other words and you can use it to show that there is only one - the Queen, the cat...

Do they? All of them? So all words are actually the names of things? That just looks wrong to me. What could "the" be the name of? What could "could" ...

Drop the "essential" for a bit. Do words have meanings? What sort of thing could a meaning be? Is it the dictionary definition? The intent of the spea...

I don't see why this follows. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Collection.html Are you using "collection" in this specific sense? But wouldn't that mean t...

Looks like a confusion between sets and multisets; collection being another term for multiset. What a word means is best understood as the role it tak...

why ask such a question?

One might be able to show it; but there is likely to be some misunderstanding. https://foreignpolicymag.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/duckrabbit_lb22.jp...

Why?

If you like. That point is irrelevant to a discussion of the use of constants in first order language. @"andrewk"'s example above appears clear enough...

Suck it up. Nu. It doesn't espouse a wide enough explanation to count as a cracked pot. The stuff I wrote this morning about the role of the Awesome i...

It's more entertaining than doing crosswords.

I thought I did. Setting aims for education is counterproductive. Instead, be awesome. But of course what counts as awesome cannot, by that very fact,...

Generally speaking N. sucks. Zarathustra is only superficially awesome. In the end he is a blowhard. https://assets.entrepreneur.com/images/misc/15072...

No; the result would be the dystopia pointed to by @"javra".

Neat example.

I'd rather call it foundational.

when what happens in the classroom is awesome.

That's not how it goes. Rather, happiness will be one result of education if you are doing it right.

If it were, it would be an attitude towards something. But that does not sound right, since there is not obviously an object that is awesome.

I came across it in The Philosopher's Zone podcast, a while back; but it's been growing on me. Just downloaded the book. It appears capable of bringin...

Hm. happiness and subjective well-being are a side effect of living with the awesome.

Which society? I'd say that the US education system is in a state of utter decay. But here in Australia we have managed to keep a high degree of quali...

Perhaps I'm missing something about uncountable sets. Can one set with aleph-1 elements be mapped to another set with aleph-1 elements? So could an un...

OK - I get that. It's a side issue.

get told what to do by folk with no idea. It's not the kids who voted for Trump. It was the least educated forty year olds.

Being awesome is unpredictable, different. It's also outgoing, growing, exploding. Education should be awesome. But that's not giving it a purpose; it...

Anyone seen this? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-be-awesome/

See how this does not follow from what I said?

IS there? A concrete Jungle?

Ok, then I am right that education should not serve any particular purpose.

Then back to my first observation. The common folk don't agree. Nor is it obvious that even if they dod, they would be right. Hence, back to my origin...

Do we? What about?

By whom?

Sure. Organisations have to look as if they are acting rationally. But they are not. They will choose someone with a degree over someone who pulled ou...

So is supposed to be descriptive? It's not. Most stuff taught in high schools and universities is never used at work.

We might consider this: https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/freedom-learn/201309/schools-are-good-showing-not-learning

Perhaps you are not saying as much as you think you are.

Just keep in mind that what you are doing here is no more than setting out your own preference.

What a brilliant reply. You win.

Not at all. You are welcome to use rigid designators all you like.