creativesoul

Justified... or "well-grounded"? Did Plato use the term "justified"?

Same problems as the truth thread. Anthropomorphism... the personification of thinking about thought and belief(Reason). Reason is not the sort of thi...

I'm denying that the rules of entailment are rightfully called "logical rules", for the reasons given heretofore.

An accountant is one who is taking account. An account is a report of something else. Gettier Case I. Are you familiar? Gettier is taking account of S...

That's bannable? :brow: Oh... fake... like information that contradicts each other?

:rofl: Yeah... whatever dude.. Wie auch immer...

You've reached incoherence my friend. You're equivocating the terms "Reason" and "truth". You've also changed the terms between the premisses and the ...

All assertions are made by language users. Reason is not a language user. Reason does not make assertions. Sound. Refutation of the primary premiss.

The second premiss is false. Many people make assertions.

No, "persons" refers to more than one person. That's what the term followed by the letter "s" is doing there. Denoting a plurality... Different argume...

We're getting somewhere... There are several different criticisms being leveled here at the same time. It would serve us best to focus upon them one a...

The conclusion does not follow. Therefore Reason is persons and only persons... ...that's what follows.

The rules of entailment allow the truth conditions of a belief to change. That's just bad logic.

The first one is not. You're talking about something other than the first one. Thus... Irrelevant. I've refuted the first. Whether or not the second i...

Irrelevant.

Rubbish. If groups cannot assert things there could be no groups asserting things. But there are, and they are everywhere asserting all sorts of thing...

I've already adequately refuted the primary premiss. I'm now granting it and focusing upon the invalid inference. After you grant that mistake, I'll c...

With me? :brow:

Now we've gotten somewhere. The conclusion does not follow. Therefore Reason is persons and only persons... ...that's what follows.

Pointing out the problem in that argument. Reason, being an asserter of things, must be everyone who asserts. It makes no sense to pick out an individ...

All asserters of things are Reason... it would follow... not a person. All people who assert.

Assertions require a language user, something to talk about, and assertions about that something. Reason is not a language user. Reason does not have ...

More of the same meaningless incoherent nonsense.

Another accounting malpractice... You're attributing the capability of making assertions to that which does not have what it takes. You're assuming th...

Then we better find a better way to talk... Reason is thinking about thought and belief.

Not very good at that are you? Assertions are made with language use. Reason is not the sort of thing capable of using language. Reason cannot make as...

Looks like an accounting malpractice to me... from what propositions are... through what an argument is... through what sorts of things are capable of...

Now you're presupposing that I've told you how I won a game of chess? I've not. Thus...

Both the primary and the secondary premiss is false. The conclusion is rendered irrelevant.

You made the assertion. You are not Reason.

There are a plurality of assumptions within the above quote. Despite that, you assert the following... That is gibberish.

Yes. What are the sorts of things that we say are capable of making an assertion?

You're not very good with the spatiotemporal aspects of your own worldview are you? Both of those endeavors are existentially dependent upon having an...

You're granting too much... even here. The 'ole chap is not even using the term "Reason" in accordance with it's original usage.

That is precisely the belief that you're working from. There are true contradictions. Thus, you shrug off the LNC, on pains of coherence.

No. You have not. Such evidence could be easily produced and/or reproduced here and now. Show it.

You need for me to give you good reason for believing that Reason is not the sort of thing that is capable of making assertions? Really? Imagination d...

Read the OP for yourself, my old friend... it's impossible to be taken seriously. The abuse of language is self-evident.

Reason doesn't assert. Such talk is nonsense. There is also no such thing as "the property of being a proposition"... More nonsense. That's the gist o...

Just carefully go through Bartramp's comments and pick out from a slew of self-contradiction. Stop wasting your time my friend.

I mean more like the need to take proper account of that which consists of both, and is thus... neither.

A move most certainly needed in many respects...

Reason presupposes truth as correspondence by virtue of presupposing the truth of it's premisses. The OP hasn't even realized that all he's done is ar...

...

If you believe that that's a true report of our exchange, then I've nothing further, it says all that need said about how well your notion of truth ac...

I'm calling bullshit here. I've shown how your criterion for what counts as "truth" can be satisfied by falsehood. Truth cannot be false. Therefore, y...

Do you believe that that statement is true?

If truth is a property of a proposition, and all propositions are existentially dependent upon language, then so too is all truth. That is what you ob...

:death:

You did doubt a claim about the existential dependency of propositions. If it doesn't matter, so be it. I'm good with hearing the answer to the last q...