The Great Whatever

Don't aggress me!

I don't know. There are myths about the supposed 'world' actually being a fractured dream, where some deity broke apart due to its own loneliness or f...

Keep fighting the good fight everyone.

If you disagree with it, it's probably a misuse of language.

I know you're not. Kek!

It could be mitigated, but new pains would arise. Those who medically cannot feel pain do not by that token have 'good' lives in any sense.

As if problems only affect me because I 'allow' them to. Am I God or something? 'Stop, problem, you may not do that!' Kek! Yeah, or hunger, and so on....

But you can read their stuff and see they aren't. Kek!

I think I am beginning to get old-school metaphysical again! Indeed there is a ground, but it is a relative ground: I am a ground relative to you, you...

Nah, life's harder problems aren't dependent on mood. They're dependent on, for example, being an organism that decays and experiences incredible pain...

But the Stoic response is to do nothing, really. All problems are illusory.

Fitch proved it, remember? At least, if you want to preserve non-omniscience. Kek! The suggestion that learning language primarily consists in paring ...

I'm not sure about contentment. I've certainly felt respite, but it feels more like getting a break to breathe from drowning. Not only is it not a pos...

No it isn't. If it was, you could just define bad so that it involves only things that never happened to you, and your life would become perfect (it w...

Maybe. Are you familiar with Hegel's comments on Stoicism? I think it's possible for bad things to happen to you regardless of what your response is t...

It's really great. When you're hankering for the deep shit, go back to the Treatise, and then if you want to go deeper go back to Berkeley's Principle...

I'm not big on the idea that philosophical problems are perennial, unanswerable, or mysterious. To take just one example, I believe that the so-called...

Admitting you have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.

Actually, I'm generally in favor of anonymity as well, but it might be unworkable in this format.

Doesn't follow.

*masturbates furiously*

I didn't say they were.

Nobody disputes that the world is full of suffering. Stoicism seeks to heroically stand against that fact by declaring that nonetheless, this is irrel...

My own opinion... No. I pretty much agree with Hegel that Stoicism ultimately is empty posturing. It gives itself a kind of ideal to reflect on that m...

Because languages are different.

No it doesn't.

If the point of likes and karma is to create some positive incentive to post or some positive reinforcement for doing so, allowing that without the po...

Get rid of it entirely. The model of likes and dislikes, karma, and so on, are meant for a model of interaction that has nothing to do with the goals ...

But the meaning of the individual word can equally be seen as a template for what it contributes given some context: clearly speakers have this sort o...

'Bracketing' is good. It's what's at stake in the Skeptic, and later phenomenological, notion of epoché, which is quite Socratic in origin. With gentl...

But 'hello' obviously can be translated, and is in almost any pedagogical language text. That doesn't seem plausible, especially given your contention...

I mean 'irony' in the broad sense of exploiting customs for something other than their conventional purpose. So specifically in philosophy there's the...

The answer to what linguistic meaning is can only be provided in the context of an entire theory of semantics. But I would say that clearly, 'linguist...

Linguistic meaning specifically has some interesting properties that aren't reducible to 'modality' (being written, spoken, signed, etc.) That is, eve...

No, that was one of Husserl's initial concerns. It was mostly phased out by later phenomenologists who didn't have the same technical training that he...

I don't know why you would take 'linguistic' to mean 'concrete.' Those words don't even mean close to the same thing.

I don't understand why I'm obligated to provide a reason when you haven't, especially since your view is clearly at first blush the more ridiculous on...

That doesn't strike me as a plausible position.

Because meaning is a broader phenomenon than truth. Even linguistic meaning is. Thus 'hello' is not truth-conditional, but it is linguistically meanin...

I don't know, I was just offering an opinion. I have the vague feeling that this approach results, like I said, in more correlationist paradoxes, but ...

A little aside here, but (first) language not only isn't taught in school, but can't be. --- I'd say that the way language is supposed to work, it pre...

Davidson's paper is about a theory of truth, which forms part of a theory of meaning. He accepts that there is more to a theory of meaning than a theo...

Why not go a day without it, or assuming anyone does, and see how far you get? Also, it does no good to claim that truth conditional things are often ...

??? Yes, of course they are, they're a huge part. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise? Because even things without truth conditions share a com...

Philosophy functions roughly as a research program whose output is other research programs. By that metric it's been extremely fruitful.

Semanticists don't spend quite so much time on these issues as philosophers of language do, but to the extent that they do, they're generally interest...

All complete theories have partial theories embedded in them. It has to be that way if you think the phenomena are at all diverse.

Yes, but that's not the point of the paper. It's to work on one specific aspect of a theory of meaning. Some pieces of language are truth-conditional,...

In short, no. Most of the things he mentions are areas for future research using the same sort of theory, which have been studied extensively by truth...

It's right here, friend: And what do you know, it's a post that quotes you right below the very post you made. 'Thank you for doing my job for me, TGW...