S it is a different take on it.
Can you answer why questions like the clapping hand are asked within Buddhism? — wax

No, not really, because I don't know enough about that. But I could make a roughly informed guess of the kind of explanation that would be given.

Monozygotic twins are those that develop from the same zygote (sperm+egg) and are described as identical twins. They have identical genetic codes. In other words the physical aspects of such twins are indistinguishable i.e. insofar as the physical is concerned monozygotic twins are perfectly identical. — TheMadFool

This is false. I myself am a monozygotic twin. I am almost genetically identical to my brother. That we are not perfectly identical is evidenced by our differences in facial structure, height, weight, congenital conditions, fingerprints...

The fact that monozygotic twins are genetically identical — Nicholas Ferreira

It's not a fact. It's a common misunderstanding.

well the question asks what is the sound of x clapping(which involves two hands). The x they ask the question of is 'one hand'...the concept of clapping is invoked which uses both sides of the body, and presumably both sides of the brain are involved.
Trying to contemplate one hand doing this creates a split in the imagination process....a sort of split between left and right...this leads to the mind dying a bit......the mind will try to heal any split that has happened, using any resources at its disposal...which might involve memories and feelings that might have been laying dormant in the person.........it all might lead the person to think something positive has happened, but actually they have died a little. — wax

It would be a loaded question, like I mentioned earlier. It would contain a controversial assumption, namely that one hand clapping can make a sound. This is controversial, because it is typically understood that clapping requires two hands. And if that is so, then the question implies a contradiction.

That's a better analysis than yours, because it is less rambling and more logical, and it only says what needs to be said. None of this "dying mind" stuff or stuff about memories and feelings and whatnot.

No, unforeseen said that armed societies are normal. And that started another line of discussion.

You implied that the UK was a great place to live and that it would last forever even without guns. Or something along those lines anyway.

I said that the UK is the violent crime capital of Europe and even beats the US. — Sir2u

You do realise that the evidence is on display in public, and that if you try to misrepresent, you risk being easily exposed? Look:

With regard to firearms, the United Kingdom is not generally an armed society. Our citizens, criminals, and police are generally unarmed in that respect. And yet, since this has been the case, we've stuck around, and it is no coincidence that gun crime is exceptionally low here in comparison with other places, and there's no good reason to believe that we won't last very long as a result of these circumstances. That's balderdash.
— S

But the UK is the violent crime center of Europe, even beating the USA. — Sir2u

You really should learn when to concede. You very clearly changed the subject to the broader subject of violent crime.

You said that was false. — Sir2u

Again, let's look at the evidence:

I suspected that your link would be dodgy. And guess what? It is. It contains a statistic that the much more credible fact checking website PolitiFact rates as false. — S

Note that I never even denied that the UK has a higher rate of violent crime in comparison with the US. Although that doesn't mean that I accept it either. Like the article says, and as experts in this field say, it's impossible to produce a truly valid comparison. — S

The claim that "the UK is the violent crime capital of Europe and even beats the US" was based on a statistic which a credible fact checking site has rated as false.

And andrewk similarly exposed some of the other links you referred to in an attempt to support your claim.

It's a good thing that there are people who actually look into these things critically instead of just swallowing them up.

What next? Let's see:

I commented that it must be awful living in the UK with all of those knife crimes. — Sir2u

Which changes the subject once again, so I made a point which connected knife crime to gun crime, thereby making a relevant point, given the topic. This point of mine was not only relevant, but well supported, which is more than you can say.

Then you said that you had addressed those things before as if I had asked a question or made some sort of incredible statement about knife crime. I just made a comment about something that you can read about in the newspapers everyday, and they do appear to be happening more and more. And lots of those people that have been stabbed appear to have died. Unfortunately, or maybe I should say fortunately there are not many gun crimes in the UK to compare the survival rate to. — Sir2u

Yeah, and as we all know, papers never exaggerate or spin things a certain way or even more or less just completely make things up. But even if your point about knife crime in the UK is true enough, that still doesn't make it relevant in this context.

It's just the same old whataboutery. The last recourse of those who do not have a proper argument, but still want to look as though they're making a good point.

rhetorical questions are questions that have implied answers, or obvious answers.
the question of the hand clapping doesn't have an answer, so isn't really a rhetorical question imo.

The question is a kōan, and it, I think is asked in order for the person asked to attain a new state of being...not just to get people to think;. — wax

Well, that was my own take on it. What it has in common with rhetorical questions is that you're not supposed to answer it in the usual way. I would ask it to trigger critical thinking. I wouldn't be asking it in the usual way. I would be asking it to give an opportunity to identify a problem with the question itself or to come up with a creative answer which fits.

it's a question with no actual answer... — wax

Like a rhetorical question. Rhetorical questions get people to think. Getting people to think can lead to wisdom. You're not supposed to answer it in the usual way. You're supposed to analyse and solve.

You think people can be taught to feel? To think, yes, there are definitely ways in which we can improve our thinking, and many of them can be taught. But teaching someone to feel? How would/could that work? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

Empathy tasks. You know, like, imagine how you would feel if that were you?

A bit cliche but: what is the sound of one hand clapping? — praxis

Ah, the sound of a rhetorical question. It's a good example of a loaded question or a riddle which stumps some people and gets them to think. The wise ones don't get stuck there forever, but learn to solve it and move on.

The wording isn't terrible. — Pattern-chaser

Yes, Master. Sorry, Master. In future, if I find myself in a situation like this again, I will refrain from demonstrating how such a wording leads to logical consequences which seem to suggest otherwise, in case it embarrasses Masters such as yourself, and they take it personally.

Master, what do you think of Diogenes of Sinope? Was he a fool to bring a plucked chicken to Plato's Acadamy and exclaim, "Behold! I've brought you a man!"?

Do you know what they did after that? They improved the definition. Maybe they should've just replied that it's not a terrible definition, and thanked Diogenes for nothing.

No. It requires your deliberate misunderstanding to reduce it to nonsense. :sad: — Pattern-chaser

Is it wise to give a definition if the wording is terrible and easily leads to the very thing you call nonsense? Is it unwise to get you to try to think of a better way to word it?

You tell me, Master.

Maybe more like Dr Nick Riviera? — jamalrob

Hi everybody!

Thanks but I have no need for your ersatz bear shit. — Fooloso4

That's what all of my patients say. We don't want your medicine, doctor! We don't need it! It's like the opposite of hypochondriasis.

Wisdom is that which enables us to discern or recognise right action. It is not right action of itself. — Pattern-chaser

And that's all there is to it? Discernment or recognition? Nothing additional about acting accordingly? So long as I discern or recognise right action, I am wise, even if I spend my entire life doing foolish things? Even if, say, I spend my entire life bashing a frying pan against my head and incessantly rambling about the wisdom of cauliflower, I would be a wise man, so long as I discerned or recognised right action?

Wait, it's actually worse than that. You say that it's not the discernment or recognition, but what enables it. So my brain is wisdom, yet my discernment or recognition and my actions are just that and nothing more.

I don't remember you ever trying to explain just how it would be/become something other than a set of ink marks on paper. — Terrapin Station

My argument set out what it was beforehand and rejected that it would magically change. The only possible reason for it to change without magic is if your hidden premise is true, but if you haven't justified your hidden premise and I can find no justification by my own assessment, then I have no reasonable basis for believing your hidden premise to be true.

That's your claim. The question is how it does any of that when we just have a set of ink marks on paper and no people exist. The justification for my position is the complete absence of any account or explanation how it amounts to anything aside from a set of ink marks on paper. — Terrapin Station

You know my argument, though. Or you should do. So we shouldn't just start from scratch.

Re our meaning dispute, I'm not sure if you're imagining people literally being taken out of the picture. If we have something like a dictionary, say, where there are ink marks like this: "dog - a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, nonretractable claws, and a barking, howling, or whining voice," if people are literally out of the picture, how do those ink marks amount to anything other than a set of ink marks on paper? — Terrapin Station

Because it's also a statement, a definition, and it means something. The difference is that you think that this requires a subject there at the time to understand it, and I do not. I don't think that you ever justified that in a logical manner. Maybe this amounts to just another fairly trivial semantic disagreement. You use those words differently.

A set of rules, ontologically, requires meaning assignments, and that only happens via people thinking about the utterances, the text, etc. in specific ways--which is their brain functioning in particular ways. — Terrapin Station

It requires meaning assignments for what, though? This was the reoccurring problem before, in the other discussion, if I recall correctly.

Alright, so, bracketing genesis, and given that a language exists --- a set of rules is a set of rules. Ontologically? I guess the being of a set of rules is the being of a set of rules?

Are you asking if rules have heft? — csalisbury

Tautologies like that aren't helpful, and I don't even understand your last question about what I'm asking.

I'm asking what kind of thing a set of rules is, fundamentally. What kind of thing is a set, fundamentally? What kind of a thing is a rule, fundamentally? What kind of thing is language? What kind of thing is meaning? What do they consist of, on a fundamental level? Physical? Mental? Abstract? Concrete? Objective? Subjective? Location? No location? Is location a category error? How does interaction work? How does it all tie together to result in language use?

I'm so sorry, Master. I am humiliated. I have addressed you as an equal, and I am but a lowly student in your eyes. I abase myself before you and salute the knowledge and wisdom you hold. I sought only to discover your thoughts, not to trouble you with my own. I sought to learn from you, but I am not worthy. My apologies. — Pattern-chaser

Is this what they call "sarcasm"? You'll have to teach me all about that some time. But first, of course, I must answer your question in exactly the way that you want me to, instead of you taking onboard my points and acting accordingly. I simply must do this for you, or else...? Or else what? You'll repeat the same question and expect a different answer each time? You'll give me some more of that sarcasm?

...according to the rules (conventional syntactical practices)
— Janus

So you use "rule" to just refer to a conventional practice?

You could have simply said that if so, no?
— Terrapin Station

:grimace:
— Janus

No idea what that would indicate.
— Terrapin Station

Asperger's then?
— Janus

It indicates that you have Asperger's? Why would you be telling me that all of a sudden instead of just answering the simple question I asked?
— Terrapin Station

You're the one with no idea what an emoticon indicates; but by all means project away, and I'll leave you to it. :yawn:
— Janus

Right, especially when it was in lieu of answering a simple question. I was looking for an answer, not a deflection.
— Terrapin Station

Sorry to be harsh, Terrapin, but it wasn't a deflection it was a rejection. I don't have the patience for persistently intellectually dishonest interlocutors.
— Janus

It was a rejection of a question?
— Terrapin Station

No, of your whole sophistry.
— Janus

That's a lot to read into two simple questions.
— Terrapin Station

I'm not taking any sides here, but I thought that this was a funny exchange, and it remained relevant enough. These kind of exchanges are almost inevitable. They're both big boys, both have a sense of humour, both have thick enough skin, both are capable of sufficiently remaining on point. If my current discussion was closed because of something like that, especially when I'm not even involved in the exchange, then I would be very annoyed at the staff responsible.

Just edit or delete if need be. And let's not overreact to a bit of banter or a cutting remark here and there or a few blunt truths.

Am I dense... — csalisbury

You shouldn't begin questions like that with me. Are you trying to get me in trouble?

Am I dense for focusing on the text of the OP rather than the title? All the 'ontology' here is bound up with 'origins.' There's no mystery here. That's how the OP was structured. It's a poisoned well. — csalisbury

And what is that ontology? How does that quote even begin to address that?

It talks about origin and development, and then it ends by saying that "only at that point can you start to talk about a set of rules which defines how the language functions". It also says a little bit more, after quoting what I said, in that same vein about development and suchlike, and about how language functions.

So, what the heck is a set of rules, ontologically? What's what? How do the ontological relations work?

Guys, stop joking around or I'll close the discussion.

I’ll go for one of the four. — Michael

You'll intend to go for one of the four. You've never been on a night out with me. It's all or nothing. We might end up seriously injured, off of our faces on drugs, in a crashed Ferrari with two dead hookers in the back, but you couldn't say you didn't have a good time.

I didn't intend to ask about linguistic meaning. Nor do I especially want to know what Wittgenstein thought wisdom was. My interest is more focused than that. I just asked:

What do you think wisdom is? :chin:
— Pattern-chaser — Pattern-chaser

Sorry, but I'm not going to give you the easy answer. Do you think that that's a good way to find wisdom? By having it handed to you on a silver platter?

The only people qualified to help you with your problem(s) are those who keep you locked in your room.
I know, I know: you are the Doctor, not the one who needs a Doctor.
Just be grateful for the computer and internet connection. — Galuchat

No, no, no. You've got it all wrong. I know this because I'm the doctor. I can leave here any time I want, I just choose not to. The padding is very comfortable here.

What? You would offer your services? — Fooloso4

Yes, I run a number of successful businesses. How can I help you?

We all make mistakes. But I think you were suggesting a very specific kind of situation, and are backing out w/ plausible deniability. — csalisbury

No, I think that I could have left out the talk about the origins of language, and in hindsight, maybe I should have. What I'm trying to get at is deeper than that. Even if the origins were or are a mystery, surely I can still enquire about what it is, ontologically, and how it works, and things like that. The clue is in the title. It says "Ontology", not "Origins".

Why not play slow and tight with your words, instead of putting them out there in a way that almost guarantees misinterpretation? — csalisbury

I'm only human? Sorry I'm not perfect. You do know I'm only playing around when I say otherwise, right?

Fine. As you would put it, I was "playing extremely fast and loose with 'invent', 'agree' etc.". Just as there's a bad way to interpret what Rousseau was trying to do, there's a bad to interpret what I'm trying to do.

But I will award you and Baden a point each if that's what you're after from me.

I think one thing that makes closures more attractive here is that it leaves a trace, and the moderation is otherwise almost totally invisible. If only we had proper Pauline software. — unenlightened

If you lend me £50,000, I promise you I'll buy back the old forum. I definitely won't blow it all on drugs, hookers, fast cars, and partying.

Yes, it leaves out all but one of the final twenty or so comments which were the ones where the philosophical content was negligible and on which the decision was primarily based. But I'm sure that was just an oversight on your part. — Baden

You're sure that my acknowledgment that a number of comments on the last few pages, amongst those of pretty clear philosophical value, is actually an oversight on my part? That says it all.

Again. It was the right decision in this case and the idea that leaving things go on the way they were would have improved rather than detracted from the quality of the site isn't at all convincing. So, if you want to play at mocking and insulting people and generally making no little or effort to engage productively, please stick to the lounge or the Shoutbox. — Baden

I never suggested that things should have just been left to go on the way that they were. This is part of the problem. You're not really listening to what I'm saying.

To others, there is a general argument to be made for closing less discussion and deleting more or finding other ways to deal with them. That's something we'll take on board. — Baden

And these were actually my points. This was my feedback. Yet he addresses it to others, and excludes me.

Baden, I love ya, but I think you're biased against me here.

Well, I think I am unnecessary as Terrapin Station (one of the people more likely to be biased against you, hehe) already defended your position. — ZhouBoTong

No, you're definitely not unnecessary. On the contrary. You're too modest. Just look at Baden's comments. He said something along the lines that no one would agree with me, besides Terrapin. He wants to make out like it's all just me. It's all in my head. Or just me and Terrapin, who are harshly and narrowly judged as just a couple of malcontents. If only we could see the discussion going on in the private staff forum. I can predict the sort of content it will contain.

I think you meant no PRODUCTIVE (or valuable or something?) philosophy? But isn't that just a matter of perspective? — ZhouBoTong

Surely this situation we find ourselves in is pretty strong evidence that it is a matter of perspective to no insignificant degree.

The site staff should stick more to taking action on the more clearcut stuff, and take better care not to let their personal value judgements interfere with philosophical discussions. Do we want moderators and administrators or philosophy police who forcefully shut down ongoing philosophical discussions which contain content such as the above, abruptly and without any warning, because they do not see any "philosophical value" in it? A number of us already knew that this "philosophical value" thing was Streetlight X's vice, but is it now a vice shared by multiple members of staff? Or is it just that it is now more apparent?

And there is a sad irony in the site staff taking heavy-handed action motivated by the goal of improving the quality of the forum, when that heavy-handed approach itself detracts from the quality of the forum.

Hopefully this case was an exception to the rule. Baden didn't handle it in the best way. His judgement wasn't at its best. He won't admit this or reverse the action, no matter what. And jamalrob and some of the others will unswervingly support him. But it's not the end of the world. I just hope it doesn't set a precedent.

Let's look at some evidence, not that it will do any good, because they'll never admit they're wrong in any respect, which ironically they see as one of my greatest evils.

From the page before last:

Knowledge is a stronger judgement of truth than mere thought.
———————-

How did that change how we study the stars?
— ZhouBoTong

It may not, although the idea has been forwarded after the advent of QM that reason determines the nature of the experiment which in turn manifests in the experiment determining the nature of that which is being experimented on. This is because observation has been supplanted by the expectation given from mathematical prediction. Overall, however, in the macro world of direct experience, idealism in and of itself doesn’t change how we study, but rather how we understand what we study.

those of alive today have made idealism a part of our lives without even knowing it?
— ZhouBoTong

They haven’t “made” it a part of their lives; it is an intrinsic part, exactly half, actually, of the system that makes us human. If you’d said without realizing it, I would be more inclined to agree.
———————-

How is it such a massive paradigm shift? It seems to me nothing changed.
— ZhouBoTong

If one has no experience of what was, he thinks what is now has always been the norm. History books, the written record and imagination all say differently.
————————

concepts like math were a priori in that they already existed and humans discovered them
— ZhouBoTong

The thesis:
Those certain natural relations already existed; that which became mathematical conceptions and the principles legislating their truths are determined in the mind a priori, sufficient to explain and necessary to understand those natural relations.

The proof:
In the absence of a priori knowledge, no figure is possible to conceive from the thought of two lines. Given a 6 and a 3, no concept of 9 is possible from them alone. Given a triangle, it is impossible to conceive from it, that perpendicular lines drawn from the midpoints of each line will meet at a point central to all of them.

With respect to th OP, humans will retain knowledge of post-human rocks in general via their extant experience, but that a priori knowledge is not the same as the direct a posteriori knowledge of a particular set of extant rocks required by the OP. The former is given from intuition, the latter is given from sense.

Think of it this way: instead of asking after rocks post-human, ask about the temperature. There were humans, humans look at thermometers, humans henceforth have indication of a natural phenomenon. Vacate all humans, then ask about the thermometer. Just because there’s no reason to think there’s no natural phenomenon to register on the thermometer doesn’t lend itself to any possible knowledge of what the indication is. Hell, I can’t even tell you the temperature in the next town over and I haven’t been deleted from anything. — Mww

There's a way of talking about idealism that most of us on the forums are familiar with. It's a no-nonsense wryness. It's meant as a corrective to out-there thought that's lost its grounding. And that can be a good thing.
— csalisbury

At least you understand where I'm coming from, and accept that this can be a good thing.

Here's the problem:

Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and rivers as rivers. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and rivers are not rivers. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and rivers once again as river.
— Qingyuan Weixin

The wryness only really works for the transition from non-mountain back to mountain. It doesn't work if you never understood the 'more intimate knowledge' to begin with, if you've always only seen mountains as mountains. Kurt Vonnegut went to war, Mark Twain was knee-deep in life, before retiring from it to reflect ironically. Their wryness was earned.

What I see in this thread, and many thread like this, is common sense masquerading as a knowing wryness, one it hasn't earned. It's mimicry, a borrowed veneer of knowingness.
— csalisbury

That's how you see it. The following is how I see it.

Here's the problem. There's this assumption that because of my similarities with the average guy on the street, the same criticisms that apply to him, also apply to me. It's basically a guilty by association error. And your reply is also basically an ad hominem where you're calling me unthinking and unworthy. How judgemental of you. It's a shame you didn't go about replying in a better way.

Here's the difference. Believe it or not, I have actually thought about this a lot, and I feel like I've reached a point where I've come out the other side, only to find that my initial assumptions were pretty much right all along (albeit perhaps with a few qualifications here and there), kind of like your quote. And I've gained the insight of why it is that others go wrong, and get stuck at an earlier stage. This is basically the triad of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. You perhaps see my position as one of the first two. I see my position as the synthesis. You think that you're right and I'm wrong, and, funnily enough, I think that I'm right and you're wrong. — S

Maybe this is part of our problem. I do not think I have once in this thread attempted to argue against idealism. I am more asking, "why idealism?" "what does it explain?" (I get that these questions could be seen as an argument against idealism, but that takes an extra step) Similarly, before I engage in an argument against god, I will want someone to show me something that god does. Until then, I will remain agnostic.
— ZhouBoTong

I just listed the argument for the sake of completeness. I understand your position. As to your question: Idealism tells us what we can know about physics and how we can know it. In this sense, it is relevant for our formulation of the scientific method. Enpirical Knowledge is based on subjective observation, and not some other "direct" access to objective reality. There are also rules for constructing a theory (simplicity and parsimony, for example, often called Ockham's razor) that will change slightly based on what you think you are doing when you construct a theory.

I agree that rocks in the past does not refute idealism (as you mentioned some idealist could easily say we don't "know" there were rocks in the past - I suppose the king idealist would say we don't "know" there are rocks now, even this one I am holding in my hand), but I just view this as one of those extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Surely to say "there is a rock", is far more ordinary (far less extraordinary) than "you know there might not even be such a thing as those entities we erroneously label as rocks". So not evidence, but decent reasoning...no?
— ZhouBoTong

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is one of the colloquial sayings that are really hard to apply consistently. Who defines what an extraordinary claim is, and how? Either way metaphysical questions are not decided by evidence in the way physical questions are. How would you even apply evidence to the question of what evidence actually represents?

If S admitted that it is possible we are all in the Matirx (he did so in this thread), then I think that places him more in line with me (sure idealism is possible, but it is meaningless whether it exists or not). I also think the varying degrees of idealism also vary in how coherent they are, and so you may have noticed S vehemently attacking a particular interpretation of idealism.
— ZhouBoTong

I wasn't able to extract much information about S' post at all. But that is somewhat beside the point, I don't want to talk above someone else's head.

"It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

This line can be found at the end of the second paragraph (attached to reference #10).

By mentioning that "measurement" exists outside of any observer, it seems the author is worried about what idealists will do with his ideas...right? (I really am wondering if I am right or not here, not just driving my point home)
— ZhouBoTong

I don't know if they thought about idealism as philosophy or the consciousness interpretation of QM. In any event I don't think that the author is worried about a misinterpretation is the same as sqauring the theory with idealism. That'd be actively advocating a theory of QM that references the mind of the observer. But other interpretations, such as many worlds, seem to be essentially realist metaphysics.

And if I am reading that correctly, I think it addresses an important distinction in how idealism can be interpreted. If this is a definition of idealism (I tried to find a simple general one, please correct me if it is wrong or incomplete): Idealism is the group of metaphysical philosophies that assert that reality, or reality as humans can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. This could be interpreted as "we can not know reality except through the mind" which I would say is fine and I think S would agree (how else would we know anything?), but so what? It changes nothing, and explains nothing. However, if the above definition is interpreted as "nothing exists outside the mind" then we have a problem (and I think this is where S starts saying things that imply idealism is incoherent). I am not even saying I know it is false. But if it is true, it implies (directly states?) that we have NO IDEA WHAT REALITY IS. I am fine with being agnostic toward a claim like that. However, how SHOULD one live if they have no idea what reality is? Do you see the question itself becomes meaningless. Again, I am not arguing against idealism, just saying "why should I care?"
— ZhouBoTong

Well why does anyone care about philosophy? For the love of wisdom, no?

I also don't think either realism or idealism can tell you what you should do. Both are speculative, not normative. That the world really is what it looks like doesn't tell you what to do, either.

That nothing exists outside the mind is the position of solipsism, which is a very specific version of idealism. I haven't seen anyone here argue for metaphysical solipism.

But apart from that, why is it a problem if we don't know what reality "is"? Isn't it sufficient to know how our reality works, what observations to expect, or rather not to expect? — Echarmion

A rock is just a rock. By which I mean that it is just as it is defined. And the way that it's defined says nothing of how it looks or feels or whatever to an observer. What it says is what it is. What it does is describe it terms of objective properties.

Of course, I could have humoured him by answering the question by adopting his funny way of speaking, but I don't approve of his funny way of speaking, so that would be counterproductive. In case it hasn't become apparent to you by now, I'm a proponent of ordinary language philosophy, not Kantian language philosophy. — S

"No philosophy left in the discussion" - Baden.

"The philosophical content had shrunk to almost nothing" - jamalrob.

@ZhouBoTong, @Mww, @Echarmion, @csalisbury.

Of course, this leaves out other comments, but they're not in dispute. Am I going to deny, for example, that banter like "Now fetch me a beer" is not representative of philosophical content? No. If it was that big a deal, comments like that could have been deleted. And who would've complained? Or, again, the staff could have actually communicated with any of us responsible for these comments which were judged not to meet the standards. And again, who would've complained?

There are two disagreements about rules I have with you. One is your assertion that rules are created in being formulated, and since it takes language to formulate a rule, then it follows that rules are created by means of language.

The other disagreement I have with both you and Terrapin Station, is that the way I am using 'rule' does not conform with common usage, and the pedantic and overly strict way you are both using the term does.

Two common kinds of expressions refute that: "As a rule he has eggs for breakfast" and "It is an unwritten rule that people should respect others and wait their turn". You see the latter operating without the need for any explicit expression of it, for example, where two lanes merge, and most people give way to every second car.

Even animals do it; social predator species commonly have unwritten (obviously!) and unspoken (presumably!) rules about who gets to feast on the carcass first. — Janus

Makes sense to me. Why don't they just go with what makes sense and resolve the problem? I think I'm noticing a general link between problems and overly strict adherence to rules at the expense of resolving the problems linked to them. Some people basically create their own problems and refuse to resolve them.

I don't understand how that would amount to a disqualification. — Terrapin Station

If you begin a game of proper chess and you start moving the pieces in whichever ways you like, then you'll be disqualified. You aren't playing the game properly.

If you begin a game of proper English and you start using the words in whichever ways you like, then you'll be disqualified. You aren't playing the language game properly.

Re rules, I explained earlier that I take them to be things for which there is I mean a specific, concrete or practical, non-metaphorical consequence. The consequence is a specific punitive action taken by other persons.

Re a chess disqualification, I'm not just talking about something like "I'm not going to play with you (any more)." I mean a formal organizational decision that someone is taken out of the running to win some tournament, say. — Terrapin Station

Remember, you can just say: "well, by my rules, that still doesn't count, so it's not a rule". You're like me, aren't you? As in, generally, if you can say it in less words, do so?

"There is a rock, but no one is there to perceive it, because we all died an hour previously.

Is there a rock? Yes or no?"

What disease causes someone to ask such questions? Or is this a sign of health? — Nils Loc

It is a peculiar phenomenon known as thinking like a philosopher. It can be a symptom of ill health. Caution advised. Therapy may be necessary. Prognosis dependent on how far down the rabbit whole one has travelled, and how good one is at getting oneself out of it. Some assistance can be provided, but you must help me to help you. And I must help myself.

There's no place like home. There's no place like home. There's no place like home.

Mixed metaphors?

If this is not tongue in cheek... — Fooloso4

If a bear does not shit in the woods...

There's nothing more irritating to a philosopher than someone who almost agrees with them. — unenlightened

I agree. To some extent, anyway.

I actually agree with this,
— S

It was too good to last.

You're telling me that I should delete, even though you yourself said that I'm always wrong?
— S

Sure. If you're a moderator, moderate. Get things wrong, apologise, resign, get banned, whatever. I started looking at the thread, and I think I'd ban the lot of you and delete the whole thing. But I'm a gummy old man, and you got off lightly. — unenlightened

There's a scale of severity in getting things wrong, and that matters, as does how reversible it is. I suppose at least with a discussion closure, it's easily reversible and no one has to worry about having their comments deleted, assuming the closure is done in place of going through and deleting all the comments which are judged by the staff member not to meet the standards; or far worse, the entire discussion getting deleted when it evidently is of philosophical value, even if a "gummy" old man such as yourself is incapable of recognising that.

And thank the Holy Teapot you're not a member of the site staff! (And yes, I know you think the same of me).

No, deletion looks better - strong and competent; closure looks like 'I
don't like this but I don't know how to deal with it. — unenlightened

Anyway, it's not about the message it sends. Look, just imagine if it was me instead of Baden, because I suspect you may be biased here. You're telling me that I should delete - and delete what, exactly? Entire discussions? - even though you yourself said that I'm always wrong?

The whole point was that I think it's being abused. If I didn't think that, then I wouldn't be making these criticisms.

I'm fine with editing or deleting comments and discussions which genuinely don't meet the standards, including any of my own. Always have been.