You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

The Great Whatever

Comments

I don't care if it's 30 years old.
March 02, 2016 at 23:53
Generalized label - Hellas reborn Form of government - Competing city-states with unifying culture and free immigration between and intercity events a...
March 02, 2016 at 05:30
How is it edgy? That's just common sense.
February 29, 2016 at 02:10
I already did explain in detail above. It's not my fault if you don't read it -- what else am I supposed to do? Also, no it's not. That's not what tro...
February 29, 2016 at 01:50
People having different opinions from you is not trolling.
February 29, 2016 at 01:30
But liberals are racist.
February 29, 2016 at 01:17
Darn, I was hoping to talk to you more!
February 29, 2016 at 01:02
Whether I'm an asshole is beside the point. I was just pointing something out (and it's not just you). And from what you just said in this post, yes, ...
February 29, 2016 at 00:46
I think it goes beyond just an expectation, though, to a sense of indignation (how dare you not vote the way I want you to, and after all the good thi...
February 28, 2016 at 23:46
Because people on the left expect black people to vote the way they want them to, and get upset when they show signs of having their own opinions and ...
February 28, 2016 at 22:25
Some of that home-grown leftist racism.
February 28, 2016 at 18:36
Some of that home-gown leftist classism.
February 28, 2016 at 18:36
What? That's hilarious, quit being a square, nerd.
February 27, 2016 at 03:02
I know, that's what I just said. Point being, the logical equivalence is not trivial, and is wrong. But I'm getting tired of this too. I still think y...
February 18, 2016 at 22:29
No, you misunderstand me. You do not want to claim the material equivalence; if you do, then the claims you made earlier in this thread do not follow....
February 18, 2016 at 21:58
I think you are confusing the purpose of the biconditional. Do you mean it as a material equivalence, or something like, 'for any situation, if the th...
February 18, 2016 at 21:52
But you just said it doesn't always have to mean the same thing in the future. Ex hypothesi we are dealing with a situation in the future in which the...
February 18, 2016 at 21:42
Okay, so how does my counterexample fail, then? If you have a situation where the very same sentence, "there are still dinosaurs," which now means the...
February 18, 2016 at 21:37
The way I get from that is that this: Makes no sense unless you assume the same sentence cannot mean two different things in two different situations....
February 18, 2016 at 21:32
Okay, first of all, I am not ignoring anything, or attacking straw men. I have been replying to you patiently and in good faith. Second of all, you ar...
February 18, 2016 at 21:19
No, we do not agree; you intend the equivalence schema to mean that: "X" is true and X mean the same thing. As I have been at pains to show you, they ...
February 18, 2016 at 21:10
So are you claiming that a sentence is defined not just by the symbols that make it up, but also its meaning? Is a sentence something more than a cert...
February 18, 2016 at 21:08
If by "the previous sentence," you mean the sentence "My name is Michael," (and what else could you mean?) then this would obviously not be a contradi...
February 18, 2016 at 21:07
No, I am not ignoring this; in fact I just explicitly addressed it above. I was using the same sentence in both cases, viz "there are no dinosaurs." S...
February 18, 2016 at 21:04
I don't understand. I just showed above that this isn't true, by showing a counterexample. You responded that I switched sentences. But I did not -- I...
February 18, 2016 at 21:03
For me, it's evidently just not a contradiction, and it's puzzling to me why you think it is. You have a claim about a sentence on the one hand, and a...
February 18, 2016 at 20:16
@"Michael", if I understand you correctly, your claim hinges on saying that the same sentence cannot exist in more than one language. Is that correct?...
February 18, 2016 at 20:14
This is false. The fact that the sentence mentioned is the same as the one used in no way shows that this must be true to avoid contradiction. Perhaps...
February 18, 2016 at 15:55
Again, no. This is the error. Whether a certain sentence or string of words is true or not in a hypothetical situation (not now) does not guarantee th...
February 18, 2016 at 05:09
They are not equivalent; one is about a sentence, the other about a name. The properties of the sentence might change, while the name stays the same, ...
February 18, 2016 at 00:36
Michael, The disquotational schema as you are using it is simply false, and your whole notion of how these things works seems to be predicated on it. ...
February 18, 2016 at 00:23
A use-mention error is whenever you confuse the use of words with the mention of words; the use of words typically refers to thing other than themselv...
February 14, 2016 at 21:57
Read the Wiki article on the use-mention distinction. It will clear things up.
February 14, 2016 at 21:52
No, they are not; horses can't be rabbits, that's nonsense. What that sentence's truth means is that in that situation, the sky is blue. It means noth...
February 14, 2016 at 21:51
Also, statements don't implicitly state their own truth; statements are about things, not about themselves, clearly. When I say, "the sky is blue," I ...
February 14, 2016 at 21:49
This is not a contradiction. Suppose for example that in a counterfactual situation, "horses are rabbits" means the sky is blue. Then in that situatio...
February 14, 2016 at 21:45
We've already been over this, though. Your argument doesn't work and depends on an equivocation because arguments should be good whatever language the...
February 14, 2016 at 21:44
The T-schema is false, at least as you interpret it, as I have repeatedly shown you.
February 14, 2016 at 18:47
If you say that an animal is a horse, you are saying that it has properties A, B, and C, regardless of what words you use to say that it is a horse. Y...
February 14, 2016 at 18:45
No it's not, quit stalling. Unless he intimidates you (which is why you have ot insult his hair).
February 14, 2016 at 07:49
No, I haven't. I'm looking at the wiki page on it, it seems interesting. Reading is just so hard though. And yeah, Borges is kind of my standard, not ...
February 14, 2016 at 06:42
Bible, Iliad, Gilgamesh, Gnostic Gospels / Apocryphon, and I'm starting LotR and after the Worm Ouroboros. I also read A Song of Ice and Fire, but it ...
February 14, 2016 at 05:41
No, that sounds fun. I am taking a break from 20th century writing for a while, though, at least the 'real literature' stuff, and reading fantasy, epi...
February 14, 2016 at 05:09
Forgive the contradiction, but they absolutely did. It is apparent from their writings that they saw themselves as exalted -- Kant as a historic 'Grea...
February 14, 2016 at 04:59
I think that the power of UG lies in his straight up calling people like Jiddu what they were, hacks and frauds. I think the phrase 'jokers and bastar...
February 14, 2016 at 02:50
To be a horse is to have properties A, B, and C, regardless of the words used or regardless of whether there is any language at all. There were horses...
February 14, 2016 at 02:09
Absolutely not, and this is the core of the confusion. To be a horse is to have the property of being a certain animal. It so happens that to be that ...
February 14, 2016 at 02:01
Which property a word denotes is a linguistic matter. Your confusion is thinking that therefore the property somehow is. To be a horse is to have a ce...
February 14, 2016 at 01:56
Proper nouns and common nouns are different linguistic items. They have different morphology, syntax, and semantics. Common nouns are proprety-denotin...
February 14, 2016 at 01:44
Okay, think of it this way. An argument should be good no matter what language it's presented in. Therefore, no matter what the result of swapping in ...
February 14, 2016 at 01:29