Which is why I used the words "a bit seriously". — boethius

Are you an Aspie?

Well unless you can explain how literally "not reading" is useful for reading comprehension, I'm unable to take much stock in your opinion on reading comprehension. — boethius

Your loss. <shrug>

I can't convince ↪Terrapin Station
that goading me into writing more than him isn't a good goal, — boethius

For one, there are no facts regarding whether something is good or not. It rather refers to a way that we feel.

For me “true” can refer to statements and propositions that correspond to the objective Truth. It can also refer to things that are part of the objective Truth, i.e. facts. — AJJ

The problem with this is that you're using "true" to refer to two completely different ideas, and you're expecting the different ideas to be clear via using a lower-case versus capital letter for the words. You'd have to always explain your usage there, though, because it's completely novel. No one is going to know what you're talking about if you don't explain it.

The way I'm using "fact" is a very mundane, standard way to use that term in the sciences, philosophy, etc.

The statement is false because it doesn’t correspond to something that is true, i.e. part of the Truth. It would be true if the cat being on the mat was true, i.e part of the Truth. — AJJ

Wouldn't statements then be true because they correspond to something that is "true"?

If so, then true should refer to statements corresponding.

But if that's the case, it makes no sense of that second occurrence of true above, the one I put in quotation marks.

All human values are equally meaningless, hence the selection of them is more or less arbitrary (they have nothing objectively to recommend them over other values). — yupamiralda

If you realize that values are subjective, why would you even look for something objective to recommend them? Isn't that looking in the wrong place in that case?

we're just machines for the transmission of our selfish genes — yupamiralda

Wouldn't we be any and everything that we do?

Whatever the state of affairs, statement or proposition is in question. “The cat is on the mat” is false if the cat is not on the mat. — AJJ

So the thing that's false is a proposition. "The cat is on the mat" is a proposition, and that's what you're saying is false.

So why wouldn't what's true likewise be a proposition?

"We" as in S, EricH, etc. and I, as well as analytic philosophers in general.

False is what is not True. — AJJ

And that "what" is what exactly ontologically? What sort of thing is it?

Fine. I’m saying those relations are part of what is True. — AJJ

Okay, but that's not how we're using the word "true." We're using the word "true" to ONLY refer to propositions matching states of affairs.

Since those relations are NOT a proposition matching a state of affairs, they're not true.

It's very simple. To understand it you simply need to understand that we're ONLY using the word "true" to refer to propositions matching states of affairs.

Then, under this, to answer whether something is "true," you ask yourself, "Is that a proposition matching a state of affairs?" If the answer is "no," then it's not true.

I don’t know why you’d refer to the matching as “true”. — AJJ

The reasons stem from (a) an analysis of how people use "true," functionally (which can therefore be different than what they have in mind), and (b) a realization that there's a problem--the same problem that EricH just pointed to above--if we treat "true" as a property of states of affairs. That problem enters the picture when we try to account for "false." We either wind up having to posit some very wonky ontology, or we wind up having to say that "false" is a very different sort of thing (in the "natural kind" sense, basically--the sort of ontological thing that it is) than "true" is.

But you won’t say what a “state of affairs” actually is. — AJJ

Basically states of affairs are relations of existent things, as well as properties of existent things. Things exist, they have properties, and they are situated in certain (dynamic) ways with respect to other existent things. Those are states of affairs.

If we're using the word "truth" to refer to the matching of propositions-to-states-of-affairs, you're saying that states of affairs are part of the objective matching of propositions-to-states-of-affairs?

Your view seems to be that statements and propositions are true when they correspond to something that is neither true nor false (so how do they ever correspond?)

It seems to me I’m stating the obvious here. — AJJ

I explained this to you already. How something corresponds is that there's a cat, for example, sitting on a mat, and we say, "The cat is on the mat." What we say corresponds, or more or less "matches" something. We're naming that matching of proposition-to-state-of-affairs "truth."

Yeah, basically "If solipsism is true, then only I exist or at least I can only know that I exist. But I don't believe this. So either solipsism isn't true or no one believes it, no one believes there's any good reason to entertain it, and so there's no reason to worry about it/waste any time on it."

Kick a rock.

When you're born it's either good or bad. — Schzophr

To whom? Good/bad are always to someone. Different someones will feel that the same thing is good or bad. There's no correct answer. It just tells us something about how that individual feels.

Yes what of it? All those must be imagined too, — Janus

Well, those are things that have to be imagined when you watch films that books usually force-feed to you.

I like Faith No More and Patton okay, but I'm not a very big fan. I was just making a point about the criteria being suggested.

your goal is to goad people into wasting time — boethius

I said something very specific/qualified about that. Hence you demonstrating poor reading comprehension.

However, the only other position here, of you and ↪Terrapin Station, seems to be she should be taken "a bit seriously", but not serious enough that you or Terrapin would quote anything she says to defend your view. — boethius

I'd never use the phrase "take seriously," and I've not said anything even slightly supportive of Rand.

First, we need to not conflate definitions and meaning. Or, at least we need to not conflate text or sound strings with meaning. If a text string were the same thing as meaning, then there would never be any question as to what the meaning of anything is--you'd just point to the text string (also, I'm conveniently for your sake overlooking that there are no non-subjective associations of the type you'd need for the pointing reference). And no people would even be required for meaning. A piece of paper could "do meaning" on its own, since a piece of paper can contain a text string.

Re this: "you could access a meaning of an unknown word," you're already assuming an ontology in which there are meanings--whatever they're supposed to be, exactly, in your ontology--that are independent of what anyone is doing in their head, there for us to discover.

What one does instead is create meaning in one's head. When the meaning you create in your head doesn't make sense with the behavior you observe, then you make adjustments or additions to your subjective meaning in order to make sense of what you experience/observe. That's how communication works (when it does; often it doesn't; often we find others impenetrable, as happens often on this very site--that would be inexplicable if meaning were only text strings (and sound strings, gestures, etc.)).

Seriously Patton has a wider range than Elton and Whitney.

What about descriptions including relations, character's thoughts, other connections between things (such as how they're related implicationally, plotwise, etc.), why we're being shown what we are, etc.?

People can only have better judgment in the sense of us preferring their judgment though, right?

So you're not actually equating increased range with better singing then.

Wouldn't you think that someone like Mike Patton is better, then? He has a wider vocal range than Whitney and Elton. He's the singer on the album below, for example:

What would be some examples of music that you think is some of the best because of an extended pitch range?

From an artificially de-lifed perspective books may be thought of as "just marks on paper, etc.", but that is not our ordinary experience. — Janus

It's weird that you'd not understand what I wrote contextually. The whole point of the first part is that a book qua a book (not qua our experience of a book--because that's different than what a book is), is just marks on paper (and likewise with films). The reason to point that out is to stress the second part--"To understand either, you need to think about what you're seeing, you need to supply semantic content, you need to fill in/imagine things that you're not told/shown, etc."

It's the same deal for both.

A good singer is able to hold notes for longer or hit higher or lower pitches; — Schzophr

One thing I wanted to clarify is if you were looking to correlate it to effort, work put in, etc. So I suppose not?

Aside from that, do you think that music, say, is better if it has a wider pitch range (in a vocal part, say)?

How would you suggest we quantify skill?

Fear — I like sushi

Are you unable to satisfy a simple request to backup your claim? — boethius

I never read that. Again, you can type as much as you want--of course. It's just that I'm not about to read more than what I quote from you. "As poor thinkers as Rand" is a bit different than "low-quality arguments" isn't it? I just want to clarify that first.

which is your goal is to goad people into wasting time — boethius

That's not at all the case. You have really poor reading comprehension, as you've demonstrated over and over again.

You're saying it's not important to you 15 minutes later then? Not that you literally can't recall it?

What is the ontological status of words and their meanings? — Matias

Meaning is subjective for example. It only occurs in persons' heads.

So literally you might watch a film and forget it 15 minutes later?

If you wish to believe everyone is equally as good a judge of anything as the next person go ahead and believe that nonsense if it makes you feel better. — I like sushi

So were you just saying that each individual might prefer some people as judges, where different individuals might prefer different people?

their judgments converge and create intersubjective entities that are neither subjective nor objective. — Matias

How does this happen ontologically?

Terrapin Station
both is and is not defending Rand, both is and is not interested in the debate at all. — boethius

I think Rand blows. It's just that that's not the only reason she's not part of the academic philosophy canon. Tons of stuff in the canon blows.

Oh, so you agree with my point 'd' that the overwhelming reason Rand isn't taken seriously by academic philosophers is the low quality of her arguments. — boethius

Tons of stuff that's in the canon consists of low quality arguments.

Morality isn't invented. It comes from the simple fact that there is behavior towards others (including yourself) that you're okay with versus behavior that you're not okay with (the exact behavior for each side can vary per individual). It's behavior that you like and encourage versus behavior that might cause you to start a fight, or feel repulsed by. You can't help but feel that way. Those sorts of feelings ultimately emerged from evolutionary dispositions that help aid survival (even though they're not identical to aiding survival--it's just that the tendency to really like versus really dislike/avoid some behavior evolved because it had evolutionary advantages).

Is morality sometimes exploited for manipulative, power-oriented purposes? Sure.

But that's not what it is. It's just exploited for those ends because it is (that is, because it's human nature to have moral dispositions; that's there to exploit).