The Great Whatever

I don't think it's so unusual. My anecdotal experience is that people are a lot sadder generally than they say they are when you ask them, say in a se...

I'm dysthymic. It doesn't affect me in any specific way and I don't do anything in particular about it, because it's so nebulous that it's in that are...

If they were truly indistinguishable, though, they'd just be other humans (not "machines," if by that is meant something non-human). So that amounts t...

I watched the whole movie, yeah. I think it failed as a sci-fi scenario and as a drama personally, the former for the reasons I mentioned. The ending ...

I just don't buy it. She's literally just Scarlett Johansen. No one is wondering whether Scarlett Johansen is human. Even something schlocky like Data...

If you're interested, Sartre's Nausea is essentially an attempted refutation of this claim in fictional form.

One of the reasons that Her is not compelling as a movie, though, is that the OS is effectively no different from a woman. They literally just cast a ...

To say that "S" is true iff S, or to say that they mean "the same thing," is to say that in any case in which one holds, so does the other. That is, t...

It is not the same. We can say "chairs exist" to describe that situation. Therefore, we can also say that "chairs exist" is true, in the current situa...

This is false. For example, chairs can exist even if there is no English at all. In order for "the chair exists" to be such that it can be true or fal...

But they do not mean the same thing. One is a claim about chairs; the other, about a linguistic object.

It is not a contradiction. If there is no English, then "chairs exist" is not true; yet in such a situation there can still be chairs. Whether there a...

I've said this before, but it bears repeating: disquotationalism as presented here is not even true. On the left side of the biconditional you have so...

""Things are not illusory because they fail to match up with our own transcendental standards of truth, things are illusory because they are at odds w...

History is always made up, and there are no limits to what you can make up, and so no limits as to what can have a history. But then there's a sense i...

No, the claim itself doesn't take itself to be privileged in the way metaphysical or ontological discourse does. It only shows that the attempt at suc...

It doesn't fail in what it sets out to do, except in cases where a discourse tries to set itself aside as asking privileged questions about 'what ther...

Propositional logic has no mechanisms for tense. Of course it would be possible to translate the antecedent and consequent with the tense already fold...

I agree with Yahadreas that reference is metaphysically or ontologically non-committal. This is obvious form the fact that we have (1) actual linguist...