creativesoul

You're working from an ill-conceived notion of belief. One cannot knowingly believe something that is false. Delusions are false belief.

Meaning is related to causation, but it is not absent thought/belief. In other words, when there is no thought/belief there can be no meaning. Meaning...

Deception requires intent. We cannot intend to deceive ourselves. There is no such thing as self-deception. You're chasing a chimera...

That which is good is good in and of itself. There is no reason for being good. There is no reason for being human either, or being a tree.

It's the rules part that is problematic. Morality is much better understood as a human condition.

What's not dependent on objects? Meaning? Well, that may be a point of contention. Maybe not. What counts as being dependent on objects? Existentially...

Perhaps because the way it has been talked about is based upon misunderstanding what it is?

It doesn't have to be one or the other. It can be both.

Are you still certain of this? ;)

But how would you feel if I showed you That there is so much more I could say About urging some care when we view Others through the filter of adopted...

The way we conceive of ourselves is existentially contingent upon language. The raw feel of experience is not. How can we separate the two via languag...

Well, for starters we need to realize that the very notion of 'self-deception' is self-contradictory. It doesn't really make any sense when placed und...

Perhaps we do differ a bit on important matters Sam... On my view, and I took Witt to be skirting around it as well, teaching the child how to use wor...

I didn't say it was. Indeed. Some of it is. Not all. That's Witt's insight. Not all meaning is attributed in the way that history - at his time - held...

It said as much, with exception(s) in the US...

Ah. Yeah. That may be right. Turns out I do not have a hard copy of the PI.

Witt doesn't say that. No one that I know of holds to that simplistic notion at face value. Using words does both shows and attributes meaning.

That's yet another impressive assessment, especially given the appearances and all. ;) You've done quite well inferring influences. My attention is ar...

I want to address the comparison between our views you offered earlier... and will momentarily. But first... The first claim above is curious, because...

Hey Janus. Listen. Don't take that personally. I was letting you know, just in case. Although what you said does more closely match something else he ...

That's a misquote, by the way... Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.

You say "sure" but then go on to say something that doesn't indicate shared understanding. We cannot perform a comparative analysis upon two things un...

Upon what ground does one doubt a claim that is true of all thought/belief?

The Kant excerpt looms large.

There is no stronger justificatory ground.

A verified universal claim about thought/belief is appropriately, rightfully, sensibly, and properly called a law thereof.

Duly noted and since corrected for accuracy.

I find it much more productive to acknowledge the fact that there are things that we do not know.

Kant also held the only pure intuition(s) as time and space, if I recall correctly. Kant was wrong in other ways, on my view... The tree is publicly a...

The second question misses the mark. It's not a matter of why. It's a matter of how. I've been arguing for that.

How is the former not a logical conception while the latter is? What are you doing with the notion of 'logical'? I mean, you've called things 'logical...

I'm not saying that you have claimed otherwise. Rather, I'm assessing what you have wrote. Earlier you wrote... What I'm pointing out is that that ide...

Thus, the tree underwrites everything you've written here. It is the existential basis of all musing...

There is no evidence to the contrary. That's how universal claims work. See the Kant excerpt again with that in mind...

I'm pointing out that trees are publicly available prior to our being able to talk like that. Being publicly available does not require language. An i...

I've provided the argument. You denied the argument based upon evidence to the contrary. Provide it.

See my post immediately preceding yours...

The tree is available to the public prior to our being able to say that. In other words, the idea cannot be had by us, despite the fact that those rel...

Does the logical distinction point out a difference in elemental constitution?

Do you draw a distinction between an idea of a publicly available entity and a publicly available entity?

More rhetorical drivel. One example to the contrary is all it takes...

The idea of a publicly available entity; the tree, consists of very complex metacognition. Thinking/believing that that is(called) a tree does not. Th...

Well, actually I was attempting to clear up the misunderstanding, but it seems that you understand. So, nevermind that... The second sentence remakes ...

You have a certain aversion to bearing any burden. That fact doesn't bode well for you.

:-} I'd argue that weasels aren't either, for the exact same reason. There is no 'evidence' to be had to prove that. Rather, it stands on the merit of...

That's not the sense of 'appearance' you're employing here. You're agreeing with something I've not said. Naming the tree does not require knowing how...

It's the one underwriting everything you've said here. It's what you're looking at.

If you look at a tree and call it a tree, then you directly experience looking at a tree. If I look at a tree and if I call it a tree, then I directly...