creativesoul

No? Hm. Kinda looks that way. Looks can be deceiving. How are you defining/using the term "fact"?

You're out of options... See ya around.

I agree with all this. If we changed the definition accordingly. Problem is, we're doing philosophy here. Changing a definition in mid-debate is a bad...

Don't take it too far now... I've yet to see a complete rendition of Aristotle's definition of being a man or being a universal. I'm basing my argumen...

I addressed a specific claim. It was a definition statement of 'X' by an author. It is the only definition statement of 'X' given by the author. It is...

True. Note that the position being argued does not suffer...

Didn't say it did. Didn't say it didn't. It need not follow that you always wore one, or always will. That is irrelevant to the argument made. If you ...

What the above calls the "idea itself", to be looked upon as a model looks to be nothing more and nothing less that one's notion and/or conception of....

So what? I addressed what it did say. It does say "the language using animal". It does not say "the animal that does not use language". All your examp...

"Humans as the language using animal" is not semantically equivalent to "the animal that now uses language". Understand yet? I directly addressed the ...

Quote the argument in it's entirety and then make your case. In what way is the conclusion flawed? I'm not claiming it's true. I'm claiming that the a...

You do realize that that is what I was addressing, right? I was granting the definition as a means to see where it led... necessarily so. Reductio ad ...

That's not what Aristotle wrote, granting that Andrew M's reporting is accurate.

Doubt is belief based, by the way. Justified doubt is well-grounded belief.

The argument just provided says otherwise. Your objection is irrelevant to what's being argued. Which part are you having trouble understanding?

You sure about that? ;)

Humans are the language-using animal. No language, no using language. No using language, no language using animals. No language using animals, no huma...

Quote the entire argument, then explain how your objection is appropriate.

Muddle. Yes. No. Maybe so. A propensity for self-contradiction... Call it what you want.

Quite possible. It follows that being a human is existentially contingent upon language. No language... no humans, according to that definition, anywa...

By "a truth", I take it you mean a true statement?

I'm not interested in showing you how great I am at philosophy. I'm just pointing out that you're promoting a viewpoint which is untenable and/or self...

I'm showing you the untenability of what you've claimed.

Didn't you claim that there are no truths?

Well if it's not true, then you're wrong, because there are truths in a universe that is in constant flow.

I was admitting that I may have made a mistake in my analysis of what you've been arguing. Perhaps a direct question would help. Do you hold that univ...

Ah see... Sapentia is using "fact" to mean a true statement. That has consequences that differ from using it to mean states of affairs...

That charge is inaccurate, actually. My mistake. Unless you hold that universals are independent of language.

I'm not up for it apo. Not with you, anyway. Your view is incoherent. It calls things that are existentially contingent upon language 'independent' of...

That's not true.

Ignoring/removing... no difference. Setting them aside either way. Essentialism fails. I agree.

Language is related to the world by virtue of the attribution of meaning... by us, no less.

That's a good question Mitchell. Geckos are not existentially contingent upon language. If "gecko" counts as being a universal, as a result of geckos ...

Go back to sleep. I like talking to Mitchell.

That which we call 'X', whatever 'X' may be, must consist entirely in/of that which is not existentially contingent upon language. Let X = a penis I w...

Not all products of human activity are existentially contingent upon language. Toasters most certainly are, for they are existentially contingent upon...

To be honest Mitchell, I'm highlighting the need to be able to determine whether or not our candidate can be adequately assessed as being simply an el...

Well Mitchell... How one defines fact has a major effect/affect on the rest of his/her philosophy... assuming coherency/consistent terminological use....

To the topic... Being a better person is a neverending project. Thus, failing to meet one's own moral standards isn't necessarily an objectionable fai...

Belief would need to be accrued then. Starting simply and gaining in complexity. The simple could not have propositional/linguistic content. What else...

Senses of "man" are all existentially contingent upon language. Do any of those senses take account of only that which is not existentially contingent...

If the language-less child believes that there is a treat under the cup, then it's belief cannot consist of the terms used to report upon it. What els...

Looks like apo has nothing to add... Back to the topic... What counts as being a universal? Moreover, what counts as an adequate criterion? If being a...

I disagree that belief is conceptual. At least, not all belief is conceptual. That is... assuming that being conceptual requires consisting in/of lang...

You've claimed that I approach the notion of universal differently than Aristotle. So what? Set out the problem with my approach. There is a clear and...

Meaning requires a plurality of things. Shared meaning requires a plurality of agents. A plurality refutes solipsism.

Set out the differences between how my thinking sets out what counts as a universal, and how Aristotle's does and explain the relevance of your noting...

p1. Being a man is universal p2. Being universal requires existential independence from language C1. Being a man requires existential independence fro...

What are you disagreeing with?

Or perhaps, set out the difference between how my thinking sets out what counts as a universal, and how Aristotle's does...