It's relevant because your hypothetical scenario assumes the capacity to designate a particular time and a particular place when there are no human beings. — Metaphysician Undercover

No it doesn't, but you're welcome to make that argument.

So, let's start from the beginning. All human beings die. What next? — Metaphysician Undercover

That's not the beginning. To find the beginning, all you have to do is go back and check the opening post. But since some people are finding such tasks so difficult, I will go out of my way for you and make it easier, so I hope you're grateful.

The beginning of Part 1:

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

The beginning of Part 2:

The word "rock" means the solid mineral material forming part of the surface of the Earth and other similar planets, exposed on the surface or underlying the soil, in my language, which is based on the English language, and which you can simply refer to as English or my language. However, no one is there to understand what this word means, because we all died an hour previously.

We start from the situation as it is now, where there are rocks, and where the word "rock" has a particular meaning.

Then we all die.

Then I draw logical consequences from reasonable premises and definitions, and you...?

Nothing "happens next". There are still rocks, and words still mean what they do.

Note that even Metaphysician Undercover knew what I was talking about.

What happened to this subthread, by the way:

"Employs it in any manner. However you want to think of it.

"Do you think that people do not use meaning in some manner?"

If you were interested in me knowing what you're referring to, we could just point to it in some way.

I'll type the same shit over and over, I'll reexplain things every way I can think of doing so as long as someone seems interested in a conversation. — Terrapin Station

Then you have more patience than me. My patience has limits, as it should do, as per Aristotle's golden mean. Excessive patience creates a fool.

I don't like being manipulated into an unfair one-sided relationship, which is what I suspect you of trying to do here.

Then you have more patience than me. I don't like being manipulated into an unfair one-sided relationship, which is what I suspect you of trying to do here. — S

Yeah, I basically have an endless amount of patience, which was beneficial when I taught, which I did for a number of years.

Thinking of conversations as manipulations probably doesn't help get things rolling well.

If you're talking about your comments in the first post of the thread, by the way (why couldn't you just say that if so?), it wasn't at all clear to me from the start what you had in mind re "absurdity." But I don't like to pick apart everything in a long post that anyone writes--neither the person I'd be responding to or I enjoy that, so I didn't bother with it.

I'm not an antirealist on things like rocks, but I don't believe there's any way to "prove" that idealism is wrong. It's just a matter of whether we have good reasons to believe one thing versus another.

Yeah, I basically have an endless amount of patience, which was beneficial when I taught, which I did for a number of years. — Terrapin Station

And you caved in when those you were teaching were trying it on, I suppose? Not demonstrating enough effort, and wanting an easy ride? No? Then don't try that shit with me. If I think you're better than that, then I expect better than that from you.

And you caved in when those you were teaching were trying it on, I suppose? Not putting in enough effort, and wanting an easy ride? No? Then don't try that shit with me. — S

If anyone ever didn't seem to understand something, ever asked for an explanation, clarification, etc I explained things again, and in other words, trying different approaches, etc. That doesn't mean it always worked, but it was my job to try, not to chastise them for not understanding something (more quickly, in whatever words I initially chose).

If I would have had any teachers who wouldn't have done that when I requested it, I would have immediately gone to their superiors and complained. .

If anyone ever didn't seem to understand something, ever asked for an explanation, clarification, etc I explained things again, and in other words, trying different approaches, etc. That doesn't mean it always worked, but it was my job to try, not to chastise them for not understanding something (more quickly, in whatever words I initially chose).

If I would have had any teachers who wouldn't have done that when I requested it, I would have immediately gone to their superiors and complained. — Terrapin Station

Yeah, well, I would've made a better teacher than you, unorthodox or otherwise. My school would be composed of elite students. The very best. Those who consistently show a willingness to put the effort in, and if and when they don't put the effort in, then they learn the hard way.

My opening post wasn't that long, and it was succinct. Much more succinct than the kind of content which others around here are capable of producing. I also gave pretty clear references.

I take it that you now understand, if you genuinely didn't understand before, and maybe you've even learnt a lesson about putting more effort in in future, putting that brain of yours to use. So we can now move on, yes?

So you were talking about your initial post in this thread. What, exactly, is supposed to be absurd about the idealist stance in (1)?

The first part that wasn't clear to me in that section was "Some people, however, believe that there isn't a rock, because that would be a contradiction." What (claimed) contradiction are you referring to?

And then you say "an idealist premise which is demonstrably false, as it leads to absurdity,"--I didn't see you specify any absurdity prior to that. You just stated the basic realist view. It's not an absurdity to not believe the realist view. They could likewise simply state the idealist view and then say that the realist view is an absurdity because it's not the idealist view.

So you were talking about your initial post in this thread. What, exactly, is supposed to be absurd about the idealist stance in (1)? — Terrapin Station

With both parts I employ a reduction to the absurd. You can pick one or the other or both.

The first part that wasn't clear to me in that section was "Some people, however, believe that there isn't a rock, because that would be a contradiction." What (claimed) contradiction are you referring to? — Terrapin Station

By their logic, there can be no rock, because there is no one there to perceive it. I made the idealist premise clear: to be is to be perceived. I gave that word for word in my opening post.

And then you say "an idealist premise which is demonstrably false, as it leads to absurdity,"--I didn't see you specify any absurdity prior to that. You just stated the basic realist view. It's not an absurdity to not believe the realist view. They could likewise simply state the idealist view and then say that the realist view is an absurdity because it's not the idealist view. — Terrapin Station

Sure. It's absurd because it is very compelling that there would be a rock, as my hypothetical scenario shows. Is there a more compelling case for idealism of which you're aware? How can an idealist beat my argument?

They're only contradicting the realist view. Which of couse they'll be the first to admit.

And the realist account isn't compelling to idealists--or they wouldn't be idealists in the first place. So "This is compelling to me" doesn't make an alternate view absurd.

"Absurdity" in a philosophical context would normally refer to a reductio ad absurdum, where you assume the opposing argument and then show (via consequences that follow formally) that it leads to an absurd conclusion--but that only works where the person holding the opposing argument would agree that the conclusion is absurd, or more formally, where the conclusion winds up contradicting one of the logically derived, earlier consequences of the premises, an earlier consequence which they do accept (so that then, to accept the conclusion, which would need to be valid, they'd need to accept a contradiction). An idealist about the existence of rocks isn't going to think that "rocks are only in our minds" (or anything like that) is absurd. (Just like as an antirealist on meaning, I obviously don't think "meaning is ony in our minds" is absurd.)

"We think them up"--okay, so you're not saying that meanings don't occur in minds. — Terrapin Station

That's an odd way of speaking, as though of an event, rather than what's the case. What would be the case in the hypothetical scenario is that "rock" means what it does. That it relied (past-tense) on someone or other setting the meaning, which relied (past-tense) on their mind, is completely irrelevant to my point.

So what am I supposed to be "proving." You already agree that meanings occur in minds. That's my view. — Terrapin Station

See the above.

We just disagree whether meanings occur outside of minds. So I simply asked what you accept as evidence that they occur outside of minds, a la pointing me (even if indirectly) to any non-mental meaning properties. — Terrapin Station

My reduction to the absurd demonstrates objective meaning, so you must deal with that. That's all my argument is intended to demonstrate. Once again, I do not have to go into specifics about properties and whatnot. That's not a burden I have. Once again, I am not going to allow you to lead me down the garden path.

And particularly phrases like "and that's that" aren't going to do anything in an argument.

You might as well say, "My view is that P. I'm right, and that's that."

And particularly phrases like "and that's that" aren't going to do anything in an argument.

You might as well say, "My view is that P. I'm right, and that's that." — Terrapin Station

Talk about pedantry. I'm allowed a little stylistic freedom, and I'm going to take advantage of that, and that's that!

My reduction to the absurd demonstrates objective meaning — S

You set forth your view in a number of claims. The claims weren't an argument (nothing followed from anything else). You didn't state a reductio ad absurdum. You simply claimed that believing other than you do is a "contradiction" and an absurdity.

You agree that meanings are present in minds. That's the case when we "think them up" as you said. It's the case when we "perceive" them (in your view), and so on. I'm saying that meanings are present in minds, too.

But you're saying something additional. You're saying that meanings are also present in other things. I'm not claiming anything additional.

The burden of proof convention, if you care about that, applies to the person claiming something additional.

Here's a simple formalization of a reductio ad absurdum:

Assume P is true.
From this assumption, deduce that Q is true.
Also, deduce that Q is false.
Thus, P implies both Q and not Q (a contradiction, which is necessarily false).
Therefore, P itself must be false.

They're only contradicting the realist view. Which of course they'll be the first to admit.

And the realist account isn't compelling to idealists--or they wouldn't be idealists in the first place. So "This is compelling to me" doesn't make an alternate view absurd. — Terrapin Station

I accept that, except I'm not merely saying that it is compelling to me. That's a poor way to interpret my argument. Obviously it is compelling to me. It is also compelling to many others, but perhaps not all. This needs an explanation. And my thinking is that the idealist is doing something wrong. Maybe I wouldn't find it as compelling if I believed that to be is to be perceived, but why would I believe that, and why wouldn't I believe that the logical consequence of there being no rocks in an hours time when we all go extinct is a far greater absurdity than rejecting the idealist premise?

"Absurdity" in a philosophical context would normally refer to a reductio ad absurdum, where you assume the opposing argument and then show (via consequences that follow formally) that it leads to an absurd conclusion--but that only works where the person holding the opposing argument would agree that the conclusion is absurd, or more formally, where the conclusion winds up contradicting one of the logically derived, earlier consequences of the premises, an earlier consequence which they do accept (so that then, to accept the conclusion, which would need to be valid, they'd need to accept a contradiction). An idealist about the existence of rocks isn't going to think that "rocks are only in our minds" (or anything like that) is absurd. (Just like as an antirealist on meaning, I obviously don't think "meaning is ony in our minds" is absurd.) — Terrapin Station

What you're pointing out is trivial. People can always bite the bullet with a reduction to the absurd. That might mean that they're consistent, but that isn't all that matters. Not by a long shot!

I accept that, except I'm not merely saying that it is compelling to me. That's a poor way to interpret my argument. Obviously it is compelling to me. It is also compelling to many others, but perhaps not all. — S

it's irrelevant how many people something is compelling to. Appealing to that is the argumentum ad populum fallacy. And the person who is claiming something different has no need to explain a common alternate belief unless they're interested in some sort of psychology/sociology project. Alternate views aren't made true by explaining how a belief that's wrong got popular (or made false by failing to explain that).

The point is that you didn't set forth an argument, and you didn't at all estbalish a reductio ad absurdum--an argument is necessary for that.

That idealism or antirealism on something is unusual may very well be the case, but that has no implications for its truth or falsity.

You set forth your view in a number of claims. — Terrapin Station

True.

The claims weren't an argument (nothing followed from anything else). — Terrapin Station

False.

You didn't state a reductio ad absurdum. — Terrapin Station

False.

You simply claimed that believing other than you do is a "contradiction" and an absurdity. — Terrapin Station

False (misrepresentation in light of "simply").

You agree that meanings are present in minds. — Terrapin Station

Possibly false. I wouldn't word it that way, and I have not agreed to wording it that way.

That's the case when we "think them up" as you said. — Terrapin Station

We think them up, yes. It doesn't follow that they're actually present in our minds, as though they have an actual location. Some of our language is metaphorical. The sun doesn't literally rise in the morning. What I'm saying isn't literally going over your head in a physical trajectory.

It's the case when we "perceive" them (in your view), and so on. I'm saying that meanings are present in minds, too. — Terrapin Station

I get that you're saying that meanings are present in minds, and that you're attributing that to me also.

You're saying that meanings are also present in other things. — Terrapin Station

False. You know my position on location. We went over this in the other discussion. You seem to be suggesting something that I consider to be a category error.

The burden of proof convention, if you care about that, applies to the person claiming something additional. — Terrapin Station

Yes, and I've already given an argument from the very beginning for objective meaning, which is the additional claim, so I've met that burden. The burden of proof, if you care about that as I do, is now without a doubt on the person who makes claims contrary to my argument. If you reject my argument, then you have the burden.

It's irrelevant how many people something is compelling to. Appealing to that is the argumentum ad populum fallacy. And the person who is claiming something different has no need to explain a common alternate belief unless they're interested in some sort of psychology/sociology project. Alternate views aren't made true by explaining how a belief that's wrong got popular (or false by failing to explain that). — Terrapin Station

I find you predictable, and your skill at identifying fallacies needs some development. You have misunderstood or else deliberately misrepresented my point.

It is not a complete coincidence that most people believe that Earth is not flat. Most people believe that Earth is not flat because there is good reason to. This is a correlation which could be studied, and results discovered. I predict that the results would indicate that most people reject the theories which they know, based on the currently available evidence, have the least going for them, like flat Earth theory and idealism. Of course, I am not at all suggesting that anomalies are impossible, and I am not at all suggesting that a theory is true just because many or most people believe it.

Now, if you're done with wasting both of our time with your shoddy analysis, perhaps we can move on.

The point is that you didn't set forth an argument, and you didn't at all estbalish a reductio ad absurdum... — Terrapin Station

False.

That idealism or antirealism on something is unusual may very well be the case, but that has no implications for its truth or falsity. — Terrapin Station

Beside the point. I think that the idealist is getting something wrong.

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

We could call this a premise, okay.

Is there a rock? Yes or no?

Followed by two questions . . . Which is fine, but of course questions are not logical entailments.

Yes, a rock is an object,

That doesn't follow from anything above, it's just another claim.

and the existence of objects don't depend on us being around perceiving them.

Again, this doesn't follow from anything above it. It's just another claim.

It is not the case that to be is to be perceived.

Doesn't follow from anything above. Another claim.

To be is to be

Doesn't follow. And it doesn't actually exclude "to be is to be perceived."

and that's that.

The stylistic gesture we mentioned earlier.

Some people, however, believe that there isn't a rock

Doesn't follow from anything above (it's probably not supposed to, but I'm just making sure we know that).

because that would be a contradiction.

Doesn't follow from anything above. Also, they don't believe that there isn't any real rock because of any contradiction, by the way. It's rather just that their belief contradicts your belief.

But there isn't a contradiction unless you go by an idealist premise,

This doesn't follow from anything above, and as a claim, it also doesn't make much sense. Again, the only contradiction is that their belief is the negation of yours.

an idealist premise which is demonstrably false

There were no demonstrations above, no argument--nothing followed from anything else. It was just a series of claims.

as it leads to absurdity, as per the above scenario.

But you showed no absurdity at all.

We think them up, yes. It doesn't follow that they're actually present in our minds, as though they have an actual location. Some of our language is metaphorical. The sun doesn't literally rise in the morning. What I'm saying isn't literally going over your head in a physical trajectory. — S

So you don't believe that your mind has a location, either?

Tell me which premises or claims you reject, and we can take it from there. That's how this works. Are you an Aspie or something?

Do you reject the premise or claim that a rock is an object? Do you reject the claim that there would be a rock in the scenario? Which premise or claim do you reject, if any, and why?

The issue isn't rejecting premises. The issue is that you didn't present an argument. In an argument, there need to be premises and conclusions that follow from them. No statement in your post follows from any other statement in your post. Hence it's not an argument.

Reductio ad absurdum is a type of argument. You can't have a reductio if you aren't presenting an argument.

Again, I'm a realist on whether there are rocks.

That doesn't make it the case that you presented an argument, however, or that you presented a reductio ad absurdum.

The issue isn't rejecting premises. The issue is that you didn't present an argument. In an argument, there need to be premises and conclusions that follow from them. No statement in your post follows from any other statement in your post. Hence it's not an argument.

Reductio ad absurdum is a type of argument. You can't have a reductio if you aren't presenting an argument. — Terrapin Station

Lol. You don't even understand what an appropriate argument is in the context. An argument of the kind that can be presented in an opening post on this forum is not of the kind which can consist in an infinite regress of premises and supporting arguments for those premises, and then supporting arguments for the premises within the supporting arguments, and so on and so forth to infinity. There's not enough space for that in an opening post. It would be far too long.

So yes, there are premises unsupported in the opening post which would require further discussion. Yes, there are background assumptions. That's what the discussion part is for.

Lol. You don't even understand what an appropriate argument is in the context. An argument of the kind that can be presented in an opening post on this forum is not of the kind which can consist in an infinite regress of premises and supporting arguments for those premises, and then supporting arguments for the premises within the supporting arguments, and so on and so forth to infinity. There's not enough space for that. It would be far too long. — S

So you don't agree that arguments require that some statements follow from other statements?

So you don't agree that arguments require that some statements follow from other statements? — Terrapin Station

That doesn't follow from what I said, so it's an inappropriate question. I do agree, and if you would like to request a valid argument for one of my premises in my argument in the opening post, then you should simply make that request instead of going off on a ludicrous tirade.

You're saying that some of the statements in your initial post followed from other statements, but you just didn't fill out the details that show how they follow?