Which scientists?

"Law of Explanation" is the way Schopenhauer put it. That you have confidence in it is obvious, so it would be dubious for you to deny that you believe it. You've never come across that line of reasoning?

Some scientists consider the possibility that something can come from nothing. — T Clark

I think that's the pop science version of the story. I was disappointed to find that the real theory in question doesn't say that.

Dclements has pointed you toward the Law of Explanation. It's sturdier than any physical law.

I understand. And in the meantime, I'm awesome and those people are screwed up. I think it's probably human ethics...not just males

Male ethics is a cultural thing? Or is the actual the limit of the Real?

how could that be?

cool

just pretend I'm retarded for a second because that's how I feel. Multiple males put that on me. The common denominator is the ethics of mean?

Do you really believe that's it?

that deserves a thread of its own. Would you want to make that?

Could somebody explain why asking if all women are submissive is not demeaning but asking if a particular woman is...is?

Could I get one of our women-folk to explain this? The male-folk insist on it but won't explain it.

Adam named me Bub. I'm not happy about it.

No property possessed by the whole universe can be knowable. Agree?

Uh. Soames agrees with you that behaviorism amounts to meaning nihilism. And it's washed back out to sea except for a few minnows still flapping on the shore.

The alternative isn't all unicorns and rainbows, though. This is philosophy of mind. It's full of emotion and ontological commitments...few answers. This makes it all the more bizarre that some people feel the need to be jerks about it...as if they aren't facing Conundrum Mt. with the rest of us. Not to mention any names.

even the purportedly 'value-free' nature of the secular state, actually does endorse an implicit value system — Wayfarer

Could you expand on this?

Is this a reference to TimeLine's love of Hegel?

'I realized that everything is in vain and I hated life. This too was in vain.'

Really?

I think his argument is based on the assumption that meaning-is-use is behaviorism and so it doesn't allow reference.

Maybe it's built out of some simpler concepts. Or a collection of them: Order vs chaos. Volition vs nature. etc.

You wouldn't have to have thesis and antithesis at hand, but you'd have to know about the opposition. Any property possessed by the whole universe and everything in it would be unknowable for lack of the ability to know about an associated opposition. For instance, if everything in the universe was green, there could be no concept of green. Right?

Yea, if Heister is anti-peach-ice-cream, I doubt it's on the basis that it's unnecessary.

Are you saying that because I alluded vaguely to violence during a sex act that I must have been fantasizing about it? Hmm.

I'm not sure I want to know what was going through your mind.

Well it's with her mouth open and full that the male becomes vulnerable.

Teeth?

woman in all her glory is trying to teach a man that her submission is a path to love – holiness - for them both.

Oh my goodness. That's so touching. It just totally normalized the inferior position of women for me.

And...it's holy. Sacred.

It makes me want to submit. "Muslim" means those who submit.

Yes. That was part of the wisdom of submission he was preaching.

Islam mean a submission btw.

Well yes. Just look at all the taxes the little potential person will eventually have to pay, assuming the woman submissively spreads her legs as thinker described.

"When a man and woman make love – both are vulnerable – but who is most vulnerable? "

This one was awesome:

"Intimidation, whether it is real or imagined is always present. This fact is not lost on the female intellect."

Wait...I haven't gotten to the part about missionary position sex.

He goes onto explain that men are potentially violent...

Great point.

There are some awesome posts though. Tweet worthy:

Are women generally submissive to men? Yes, I think they are. Why, the reason is obvious – men are physically stronger — Thinker

Aha!

Are Wittgenstein glasses sun glasses?

Yes. That can't be helped... that he was a behaviorist I mean.

I think if you look at the bigger picture, you'll find that Quine was pointing out pretty much the same thing Marchesk is in this very thread.

OK. The argument I mentioned is in Truth by Convention. Peace out:)

OK. It sounds like you're saying that once you master the skill of turning your brain off, you'll understand that rule following doesn't require an explanation.

So his idea is that once we learn how to look at rules in the right sort of way — Fafner

What way is that?

Do you mean where can you find the argument?

Um... I've been thinking about reading some Carnap, that's why I asked. It was kind of a random question. :)

I would dispute this interpretation. — Fafner

Really? I gleaned it from Soames (which is about as far as my interest in Witt has ever taken me... just historical.) What do you think is wrong about it?