creativesoul

You're an idiot.

What's the difference between Ahab and Melville's report?

What I'm doing here with the odd claim is attempting to drive an existential wedge between reports of things and what's being reported upon.

Sloppy writing on my part... I meant Melville's... Imaginary people do not have thought/belief.

Such a shallow viewpoint. Some men? Sure. Not the admirable ones. You realize how fallacious this is? You realize what it has in common with many raci...

Throwing rocks at fresco...

That's not a thesis. That's an absolute statement. Ironic.

Yes. The novel reports the thought, belief, and ideas of Ahab...

If definitions are required for cognizant ability... He couldn't possibly be doing the same thing.

My common sense doesn't. Sigh... Are you denying that things existed prior to us? Simple question.

I am using common sense.

This conflicts what you said earlier.

Some things exist prior to us, and thus prior to our reports. Are you denying that?

Anyone who seriously thinks/believes that nothing exists prior to human awareness of it has lost their fucking mind.

You think so at least.

Equivocation. Equivocating the phrase "bag of turnips". In the same argument it references two different things. Your wife, and a bag of vegetables ca...

:roll:

Only if all your values are moral values. Are all bags of turnips your wife?

Things exist prior to us. That much is undeniable. Our notion of time is existentially dependent upon us. Things exist prior to our notion of 'time'. ...

The word, or what the word denotes?

Yup.

And yet things exist prior to us. :brow:

Not the same argument as the ones being objected to. Some ad hocs are better in that some are always true.

Only one wife, yeah? :brow: I understand the terms just fine. If wife go to market, wife is necessarily at the market.

Relative and absolute? Can that dichotomy take proper account of that which is existentially dependent upon and consists in/of both, and is thus... ne...

Got a tie?

Nonsensical meaningless use of the term "necessary". If I go somewhere, I am necessarily there. Freudian slip? :lol:

You're picking an individual out to the exclusion of all others... sometimes. You did not do that in the original argument. Have no idea what the chic...

There are two arguments on the table already.

If you're answering honestly... I'm sorry, but evidently you do not see where you've went wrong. Your last reply is irrelevant.

The OP invokes a particular dichotomy. The objective/subjective distinction is incapable of accounting for that which is existentially dependent upon ...

Not the same argument. The original was false(not necessarily true). The new one is always true. The old lacks proper quantification. The new does not...

:razz:

Spot on.

Spot on.

Not on my view. Melville's thought, belief, and ideas cannot exist prior to Melville. Agreed. There is a time before Ahab. Prior to Melville's thought...

So prior to our first cognition... we need definitions, self-awareness, and a rational methodology. Does that sound right to you? Seems quite evidentl...

And being defined/conceived... What does that take?

Not good signs...

Suit yourself.

No, you didn't say that at all. Regardless, you're repeating the same mistake. This new claim is not true either. It's false on it's face for the same...

It's that quantification thing... :wink:

A sure sign of knowing that one is wrong, but needing to save one's own ass anyway, by any means, is to misdirect. There's a valid objection waiting f...

No you didn't.

The irony. Close but no... Not all Helen's valuing attitudes are valuing X. So... Not all valuing attitudes are ones that value X. Some valuing attitu...

What about the value placed upon that which exists in it's entirety prior to all human language? What about the value placed upon that which exists in...

:brow: You're asking me to address the coherency aspect. Validity/coherency is insufficient for truth. The premiss is not true. That's the problem bei...

Your premiss is false. It contradicts the way things are. Need I spell it all out for you?

Odd reply from someone who has just been shown that his/her premiss is false on it's face.

I reject entailment. Following the rules of entailment is the foothold of Gettier. It is to mistakenly connect claims that have nothing to do with one...