So you think that but inventing the word 'gay,' you change what it is to be gay? How does that even work? — The Great Whatever
Here's a question: since to be any kind of animal is just to be a referent of the word referring to the particular species, were there any animals in existence before people called them anything? If so, how is that possible on your account?
I'm saying that if we use the word "equine" to refer to horses then to be an equine is to be a horse and if we use the word "equine" to refer to rabbits then to be an equine is to be a rabbit — Michael
Exactly the way it worked. When we used the word "gay" to talk about the happy and carefree to be gay was to be happy and carefree. Now we use the word "gay" to talk about homosexuals so to be gay is to be happy and carefree. — Michael
I'm no saying that to be an animal is just to be a referent of the word referring to the species. I'm saying that if we use the word "equine" to refer to horses then to be an equine is to be a horse and if we use the word "equine" to refer to rabbits then to be an equine is to be a rabbit and if we use the word "gay" to refer to homosexuals then to be gay is to be homosexual and if we use the word "gay" to refer to the happy and carefree then to be gay is to be happy and carefree. — Michael
Okay, consider the following.
"Gay" means "homosexual." Homosexuals were already homosexual before the word "gay" was invented. It follows therefore that they were already gay. — The Great Whatever
No; if we use the word "horse" to refer to furry creatures with big ears then "horse" becomes a synonym of "rabbit". — Michael
Yes, but that does not mean horses are rabbits. — The Great Whatever
It's a counterfactual argument. I'm certainly not trying to conclude that rabbits are horses. — Michael
The premise "'Horse' means 'rabbit'" is the counterfactual premise. — Michael
Because we are not at such a time, you cannot make the claim in the language as it now is. Rabbits would not be horses. They would be the referent of the word 'horse' in the language as it existed at that time. — The Great Whatever
No it isn't. A counterfactual premise has the form, "If it were the case that p, then it would be the case that q."
That what it means to be X depends on how we use the word "X". — Michael
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.