I will for the sake of curiosity, humour you and ask you to tell me where I am wrong? I think I can give quotes from you to substantiate my recounting of your argumentation. — Judaka

That whole quote, more or less. You say that I'm unable to articulate the rules, when I am. You say that that I'm unable to point towards where they're written, when I am in some cases, although that's not even necessary anyway.

It's coming back to me a little now. From what I recall, you just make some trivial semantic point and refuse to recognise the rules as rules when I provide them. And based on that wrongheaded starting point, you reach your irrelevant conclusions.

No, he is saying that the rules of language can be understood without the use of interpretation. — Judaka

No, I'm not saying that. It's unwise to try to explain to someone else my position when you don't even understand it yourself, or at least you word it wrong. Obviously understanding requires interpretation. Nothing can be understood without it.

He argues that language can have rules which result in that language functioning using those rules to generate objective meaning (i.e meaning which doesn't have to be interpreted). — Judaka

It doesn't have to be understood at the time for there to be meaning. But obviously it has to be understood for it to be understood.

Let's not repeat the errors on display in the other discussion here. That's not what this discussion is for. I explained that I already have my theory, and that idealist logic is unhelpful.

Isn't he just saying that he considers definitions, grammar stipulations, etc. rules ? Those are written in dictionaries, grammar texts, etc. — Terrapin Station

That and more. They don't even have to be written. They just have to be evident from something or other, whether implicitly or otherwise, and I have no problem - contrary to what Judaka asserts - with articulating a rule upon request. Language makes no sense whatsoever without rules. Rules are fundamental.

You're able to "create rules" but you are unable to articulate the rules that currently exist or point anyone towards where they are written. It is poor for someone to suggest there are rules which lead to objective meaning but then they are not able to articulate what rules they're talking about. I struggled to understand how someone can think that's a reasonable position, the argument is incomplete. So I gave some thought to making your argument comprehensible. — Judaka

Well, thank you. I really appreciate you going to effort of creating a new argument which fixes the problems I never had with my argument which you clearly do not understand, as evidenced by the above.

In other words, is that equivalent to what you're saying? — Terrapin Station

No. It's just related to it.

Are we saying something different than, "The people who agree to think of x in y way will probably not change their mind just because one person does something different"? — Terrapin Station

Indeed, that's not what I said. That's just a related statement. What of it?

So once a definition is set forth, it can't be changed, at least not by just one person. How does that work? — Terrapin Station

It works as per what we said at the start. A language rule was established. They all agreed on the meaning. A new person can't just waltz right in and begin changing the rules of the language without a process of establishing these rule changes in the language. He couldn't even if he tried, he'd just end up creating a different language with different rules.

An "apple" refers to a category of things which are different in some ways but similar in others, the word is used literally, figuratively and could be expanded and contracted to include particular differences but not others - for instance the introduction of a genetically modified orange "apple" could still called an "apple". It can be used to refer to an actual apple or an image of an apple which may allow for further departure from the actual qualities of an apple such as being different in size or proportions to what is found in the real world yet it's still called an apple.

Languages as they do not offer rules which encompass the variety of interpretations for what an apple could be or even is in so far as the word is used. Expressions like "the apple of my eye" make no sense when using the definitions offered by dictionaries. The context of the usage of the word can change the meaning but again, you won't find rules for this. — Judaka

No, these are all just rules. There's a rule that this new variation is to be called an "apple", there's a rule that "apple" in this instance isn't to be taken literally. Show me something where I can't give you the rule.

Your argument that language operates on rules which are not dependent upon intelligent species doesn't hold up to scrutiny in that there are no rules as you suggest. You mean it figuratively at best but there's no need for such ambiguity provided you acknowledge the parameters that hold all of these interpretations and contexts for the word that do exist or could exist in the future together. As the emergence of these interpretations and contexts did not constitute a departure from the English language but rather added to it in a way which did not change the language fundamentally. — Judaka

It does hold up to scrutiny. You're just implicitly switching between languages when you say that some variation or interpretation isn't covered and suggesting that that's a problem. If it isn't covered by a rule in the language, then it doesn't apply to begin with, and there's no issue to even address. And if it is covered in a different language, then that rule applies. So if you take an x and it isn't an "apple" in the language, then what's the problem? There's no meaning there in the language, no suitable rule which applies. And if you say, "Oh, but according to this language, x is an 'apple'", then yes, according to that language, x is an 'apple'. There's either no meaning to begin with, or it applies as per the language rule, and whether or not we all die a minute later remains completely irrelevant.

This idea of a "fundamental English" which serves as parameters for interpretations that don't break the rules is useful to you. You don't have to define "dog" because provided there are rules for establishing what a "dog" is and correcting unworkable deviations from those definitions then you have an English which accommodates figurative use, metaphorical use, alternative interpretations (particularly with regards to specificity) and so on.

I think the notion that English incorporates a range of definitions but also excludes definitions based on rules is a better argument than your current one which is relying on rules which you can't actually articulate but maybe you don't see the merit.

Doesn't matter to me because I think both arguments are wrong (as arguments for objective meaning), my version just seems less wrong in a technical sense. — Judaka

I don't see the merit in contrast to my current position, because you characterise my current position as based on a falsehood, namely that I can't actually articulate rules I'm relying on, when I demonstrably can. You don't seem to understand my argument.

And you type too much. Type less. Simplify.

So if Frank uses or defines the term differently, then the the meaning changes on those occasions? — Terrapin Station

He can't change the language on his own, because it is not his language. It already has established rules. If he wants to create his own language, based on the original language, with his own meanings and rules, then he can do so.

Okay, and one question here (this is kind of the easiest question, so I'll start with it), is that the way the word is used in conversation or the definition given in a dictionary isn't just the way the word is used in those particular conversations or the way it's defined in that particular dictionary (so that it's a fact that it was used that way in the conversation in question or that it was defined that way in the dictionary in question), but somehow it becomes the right/correct meaning, correct? — Terrapin Station

Only for that usage, yes. If you take a meaning, as per usage or dictionary definition, then it is only correct per that usage or dictionary definition, not per any other.

What is your position regarding Part 1?
(13 votes)

Realist
46% (6 votes)
Idealist
46% (6 votes)
Other
8% (1 vote)

What is your position regarding Part 2?
(13 votes)

Realist
31% (4 votes)
Idealist
46% (6 votes)
Other
23% (3 votes)

Really? :brow:

Anyway, it would be good if the poll showed who voted for what. That's a shame. And it doesn't break down the number of votes, which I had to do myself. It only shows the percentage.

This part is the most important bit to start thinking about. Imagine that we had to write an account covering in detail exactly how this part works. It must work some way, or, well, it wouldn't work.

So leading up to it, as a bit of a caricatured/oversimplified description, since there's no dispute about this part, we've got Joe and Betty and Pete and Jane and so on all suggesting words for the language, just what the words are going to refer to in terms of other words, in terms of pointing at things and so on (this aspect we might have to get back to and detail a bit with respect to meaning, but we'll just skim over that for the moment), and they reach agreements about all of this and so on. One of the terms they reach an agreement on is "dog."

Then along comes Frank, say. Maybe he's Joe and Betty's kid, maybe he's an immigrant--whatever. He's new to our milieu. So Frank needs to learn the language. Let's first detail how he learns "dog"/what "dog" means. (And I'll have some questions as we detail this, but let's just start with how the process proceeds.) — Terrapin Station

He learns the rule, which he could do through witnessing how the word is used in conversation, or by looking up the definition in a dictionary of the language.

I don't see the alleged faults in my understanding. Can you show me them? As in, give an example. Go by whatever you think my understanding is, and try to lead it there, so that I can properly assess your criticism.

For example, you allege an "inadequacy for dealing with specificity in definitions and rulesets" which you further allege that my understanding "ignored or couldn't articulate".

Oh... my... god. This is brilliant!!! Pin it to the top of the front page!!!

I've recently had a discussion very much like that in "Idealist Logic".

Oh no. Don't go there. I wanna keep my smiley face on. I like the Happy Lounge :party: — Amity

This isn't the Happy Lounge. That's next door. This is more like a dungeon for depraved dark humour. You have two options:

Option 1: Play by the rules.

Option 2: Get burnt alive. :fire:

Which is it to be?

How has it helped you? — Wallows

I went on to give a few examples. But here, have some more. It has helped me to analyse all sorts of things, like stuff related to logic, meaning, and psychology. It has helped me see things for what they are. It has drawn me to certain ways of thinking and acting. It has improved my writing.

Yes; but, has it made you a more ethical person, who is concerned with the problems of others? I can't say I am a very ethical person. I mean, I do desire the good, whatever that is and I try and put a smile on every new face I meet. — Wallows

Being more concerned with the problems of others doesn't necessarily make someone a more ethical person. It could make someone more of a fool who undervalues their own interests. I'll go with Aristotle's golden mean here.

I'm not very ethical in some traditional respects, no. But that's just tradition. Tradition isn't necessarily what's right. I've learnt a thing or two by way of Nietzsche here.

I try to put a smile on the faces of the customers I meet in my workplace, because I'm expected to do so as part of my job. It helps them feel good, and when they feel good, they're more likely to buy from us. I would much rather treat them with indifference, except the rare ones who are actually interesting. Sometimes I end up spending all day looking for the interesting ones with my lantern, but they're so hard to find.

Then you are aiming at being pretentious, are you not? Oh dear... — Wallows

By waiting? Anyway no, I am not. The opposite, actually. I am aiming at being honest, and that includes honesty in my criticism, and I aim to do this with a conscious disregard for "etiquette". That's my modus operandi.

Did you not say that Cynicism has taught you to be less aware of what other people think of you, and instead, with some confidence, continue what you have been doing regardless of their thoughts and beliefs? That's what I put into practice here all the time. Sometimes it gets me in trouble. Apparently, according to Baden, I've been overusing "bollocks" and "Play-Doh" and "fucking". Given that Baden is an administratior, the suggestion seems to be that if I don't play by his rules, which I judge to be quite superficial, then I risk action being taken against me.

Diogenes was great. He got himself into trouble too, but he didn't let that trouble him too much, or even at all. He didn't merely use colourful language, he masturbated in the marketplace. He also mocked Plato, and told Alexander the Great to step aside from blocking the sun.

You sound like more of a people pleaser. That I am certainly not. Not here at least.

Hmmmm. Are we talking about end of life now? This could get serious. Watch out. — Amity

It's alright. It's only the lives of people who don't matter. And besides, they brought it on themselves.

Anyway, going back to Wittgenstein, I believe that his main point that he tried to pass on to others was that philosophy can cause more confusion than necessary. — Wallows

A very valuable lesson indeed.

The butterfly symbol of resurrection?
Or simply change.
Burn and start again?
No. Don't do it. Let it be :sparkle: — Amity

How about a compromise? Let's meet halfway. We'll do the burning part, but forget about starting afresh.

What's everyone even calling "philosophy"? And don't we already more or less know the answers? Don't get me wrong, I've got the gist of what it is, but it seems to me that there are different senses in use. Philosophy as this, philosophy as that, philosophy as the other. Perhaps a good way of putting it is that philosophy is a multi-tool, like religion is, but with philosophy I don't want a refund. I like it and it helps me in ways. It has improved my critical thinking skills and my knowledge, which I consider useful and a good thing. Although, as with anything, it has pros and cons. Whatever it is, I'm obsessed with it and addicted to it, and have been for the past ten years.

Anything new, exciting, or insightful in that answer, @Wallows? I don't particularly think so myself. But that's where it lead me by thinking about it and answering honestly, instead of trying to be quirky or profound, which others will almost inevitably try to be if you attract enough replies, and at least a few will almost inevitably fail. I'm just waiting for the brief and cryptic attempt at conveying wisdom. It usually shows up at some point in a discussion like this.

Wittgenstein taught me a thing or two. He helped me to beware of philosophy and its bewitching tendencies. I am more disillusioned now than I once was.

Whereas I consider the consequences of the person's actions in relation to people's life and well-being. — Andrew M

It's not some sort of pure intellectual thing, though. You don't just consider, you feel a certain way about it, and that's very relevant, perhaps more than you realise.

Those assumed values are universal in scope, yes. — Andrew M

No, and that hasn't been reasonably demonstrated. It's no different, in principle, then if I were to say that God exists or we live on Mars.

Have you ever put up with short-term pain for some reason, say, getting immunization shots or training for a marathon? Does it follow that life and well-being are therefore not valuable when you choose to endure the pain?

The hunger-striker is forgoing food - a value - but not because they regard starving and dying as an end in itself. — Andrew M

You haven't demonstrated that it's necessarily a value to begin with, so saying that it's a value which they forgo does nothing. That's like saying that God exists as an Unmoved Mover, or that we live on Mars on Tuesdays.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you can't reasonably demonstrate a universal value. Begging the question doesn't count, and you've had plenty of opportunities.

Your point that it works as an explanation is refuted by my point about Ockham's razor.

I think the dispute is semantic. You define value in terms of opinion or preference, I define it in functional terms. — Andrew M

Yeah, that's a bit of a problem. You're not even talking about value, not like the rest of us. You should call that something else to avoid confusion. You're talking about food and water, which are just necessities for survival which most people happen to value, and life itself, which again, most people just happen to value. Nothing universal there when you're talking like the rest of us, as you should be. Setting up your own language barrier is not a good thing.

Clear it up then. — creativesoul

It was already clear enough. It's your fault if you missed it in spite of that. I didn't even mention trees or rocks. You plucked that out of thin air.

You invoked the notions of "artificial" and "conception"...

I thought we were talking about morality. Particularly I was making the point that just because we 'come up' with a conception of "morality", it does not follow that morality is artificial. — creativesoul

That's an irrelevant conclusion. I only said that morality definitely has an artificial aspect. Pay closer attention in future and you'll reduce the chance of making these same mistakes again.

No, I'm saying "right/wrong" is like "truth/falsity". The former relates to actions generally, the latter to speech acts. Joe murdering Bill is wrong. And that statement is true. — Andrew M

Except that the way in which we judge whether the statement about rain is true differs in important respects from the way in which we judge Joe murdering Bill is wrong, so your analogy is false or misleading at best, and not for the first time.

I can look outside to see whether it's raining. I can't look outside to see whether it's wronging. I reach a moral judgement through my moral feelings. I don't judge the weather that way - my feelings are irrelevant.

These differences have been pointed out time and again, yet still the false equivalencies keep on coming.

I didn't say I'd proven it. I said that by assuming that life and well-being are valuable for human beings, one can explain their observed behavior. It's an empirical model. — Andrew M

No, you said that they're universal values. Can you, for once, not move the goalposts? That's an informal fallacy, you know? It's a bad model as you originally described it when I made this criticism in my last reply before you moved the goalposts. It fails Ockham's razor. I don't need to make the additional posit of universal values in order to explain their observed behaviour, and if it is truly universal, then there can be no exceptions, but there can be, so your claim about universal values is false.

The empirical issue is whether the reason for hunger strike behavior is consistent with the above model's assumptions. I would suggest that the most valuable thing for the hunger-striker is not that they suffer and die, but that an injustice be overturned (which adversely affects people's life and well-being). Their hunger strike behavior is a means to an end, not an end in itself. — Andrew M

It's obviously not consistent with the model. It's an example of a situation where food isn't valuable to a human: it's the opposite of being valuable to them. It doesn't matter what you think is valuable. You don't get to decide. I'm telling you that food isn't valuable to them.

I also gave the earlier counterexample of poison being more valuable to a human than water.

I don't think that you're going to be reasonable here. You'll just explain away whatever counterexamples I raise rather than concede. If I say that the sky is blue, you'll say no, it's red. If I say that it's Monday, you'll say no, it's Friday.

And who checks their reliability? — Sir2u

:roll:

Predictable and childish.

I don't think that there is much difference between a machete wound to the stomach and a bullet wound in the same place, and it seems the people die from both. — Sir2u

Your opinion as a layperson doesn't have the slightest impact, and you can't even stay on point, just like in your exchange with andrewk. I specifically brought up gun crime, and you changed the subject to violent crime, followed by your dodgy link. Then I made a point about averages, and you don't mirror that back in your reply, so it's unclear whether you're talking about averages or only specific cases, which in turn means it's unclear whether you're plain wrong or wrong by way of logical irrelevance. And to top it off, you finish with a complete irrelevancy about people dying from both, which is obvious and which no one denied.

This is like saying soberness is older than alcoholism. A fallacy. Only after alcoholism can there be soberness. If alcoholism didn’t exist, soberness wouldn’t either. — unforeseen

No, you're the one committing a fallacy. There's no evidence that humans drank alcohol prior to 10,000 years ago. There's evidence that humans were in Africa around 300,000 years ago. It is quite possible that there were humans who were sober before drinking was even discovered. If they hadn't discovered alcohol at the time, then they certainly couldn't have been drunk on it, and they therefore must have been sober in that respect. Just because the word, concept, knowledge, or whatever, didn't exist at the time, that doesn't mean that they weren't sober. We can say lots of true statements like that about early humans. They weren't vaccinated, weren't fans of Elvis, weren't Republicans, and so on...

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.

The credibility of PolitiFact can be looked into online through other fact checking websites, like Media Bias / Fact Check, which rates it as least biased.

I've addressed your point about knife crime about a million times. Gun shot wounds are on average more deadly (which is both common sense and supported by statistics I linked to many, many pages back), so the risk is more severe, and the law reflects that, as do priorities in hospitals.

I am surprised at myself that I continue to be surprised that people believe controversial claims they read on heavily partisan websites, without bothering to follow the chain of references (if any) to see if they lead to anything other than just more partisan sources. — andrewk

I know right? I doubt that I would do that to begin with, but if I did, and then I got exposed, I think I'd be really embarrassed, and would quickly learn not to make the same mistake again.

Here I ought to remind you of the not-so-long ago history of two world wars, Cold War, postcolonism wars, opium war, famine-ridden British raj in India, the systematic destruction of the African continent, the Middle East, and so on and so forth. How much does it cost the state to keep out all the refugees from wars and the poor?
You lock the main gate and leave the room doors open, rather than locking the room doors and leaving the main gate open. Because the real enemy (the poor) is outside and in much larger numbers. — unforeseen

What has any of that got to do with firearms in peacetime? Now I definitely think you're a troll.

Wait. Are you Tom, Inis, sock puppets, etc? You are, aren't you?

You don't know what that means. — Sir2u

Yeah I do. But there's an ongoing debate about whether it's a art or an science.

Anyways...

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

https://americangunfacts.com/

If these do not seem real, you can verify the data through the sources they provide at the bottom of the page. — Sir2u

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.

Did not think what? — Sir2u

I wasn't sure you were being serious with that question. Did you genuinely not see what I did there? Or are you just yanking my chain because my sentence was incomplete, and you think that pointing things like that out to me is a good way to troll me?

An armed society is a normal society. Society without arms don’t last very long. — unforeseen

This looks like trolling, but perhaps you're just not being clear. 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.

If this makes us an abnormal society, then so be it. If only more were abnormal in this way, a lot of lives would be saved. Abnormal should become normal.

Still refusing to answer questions I see. But I guess it is because you don't have an answer. :roll: — Sir2u

Maybe you're asking the wrong questions. Maybe you're just not recognising the answers.

Human beings have physiological needs including the need for food and water, therefore food and water is valuable for humans. — Andrew M

Doesn't follow, unless perhaps you're using "valuable" to mean something else.

Humans are individuals. Physiological needs aren't necessarily valuable for an individual. And they aren't in certain cases. If I'm on hunger strike, and that's the most valuable thing to me in the world right now, then the "need" for food isn't valuable for me. It's actually the antithesis of value for me.

Yes, I'm pointing to human actions. If Joe murders Bill then Joe's action is wrong. That's a perfectly ordinary example using a moral predicate.

What makes a specific action moral (or not) is a function of what is universally valuable for human beings (namely, life and well-being).

To make a parallel with your paragraph above, suppose Alice claims that it is raining outside. If you point to behaviour, and to acts, like, say, claiming it is raining, then that's all you're pointing to: behaviour, speech acts, rain. Where's the truth to be found there, independently, as though it has a place in nature?

Yet we do say that Alice's claim is true (or not) independent of her preferences or opinions on the matter. — Andrew M

These are just the same bad arguments, only made by different people, or put in a different way. So now I'm expected to believe that your "wrong" is like rain? It's really easy to make a false analogy which looks the same, but has important differences which render it false or misleading.

I'm not presenting an isolated form of reasoning consisting of variables that you can simply replace with whatever you want without effecting the soundness of the reasoning. The content matters, the context matters, the differences matter.

And for the umpteenth time, you can't just take for granted what you're supposed to be trying to prove. What universal values? You haven't demonstrated any. That's the whole point.

We come up with all sorts of names for all sorts of things. It quite simply does not follow from that that all of those things are artificial. — creativesoul

That's a misunderstanding. I wasn't talking about things, at least not things as in trees and rocks and whatnot. These are obviously things, and obviously natural things. I was talking about language and abstractions.

Some conceptions are of that which exist in their entirety prior to being conceived.
— creativesoul

It's a mystery to me what that might be saying/what it might amount to. — Terrapin Station

Glad it wasn't just me. Good luck to anyone trying to make sense of it. I tried.

Did not think what? Please try not to write these cryptic one liners, Banno is the only one that can do that correctly. — Sir2u

Pfft! That old goat probably can't even button up his shirt correctly.

Intuition is how you figure out what your preferences are. — Terrapin Station

Seems quite plausible to me, at least or especially in a context of aesthetics or ethics.

Ahh, now I understand. — Sir2u

Do you?

You want a hundred percent guaranteed answer. — Sir2u

Didn't think so.

As far as I can see no one is. But no one has given any ideas about how to go about doing it either. — Sir2u

As far you can see, yes. Perhaps you can't see very far.

Okay thanks for the answer.

Re the physical stuff, I'm a physicalist, obviously, so I think that everything is physical, including mental phenomena, including abstractions, etc. I have beliefs about what's going on with things like meaning in ontological terms (which is then a physicalist account for me). When I encounter a different, "competing" view, I'm curious what the details are, so that's why I push for that. — Terrapin Station

That's fair and makes sense. The most suitable -ism for me in terms of the ontology would be scepticism. I reckon I could probably agree with a physicalist about a lot of things, but I don't go as far as they do, because of my scepticism. I'm obviously not an idealist, but I haven't concluded physicalism or dualism either.