Okay. Just make amends and let’s forget it.

Males and females are treated differently AND they have different characteristics about them IN GENERAL. This says NOTHING about any PARTICULAR male or female.

All criminals are human, so it must follow that humans are inferior in some regards?

Ah. Perhaps you were speaking of me talking about objective referents? When we speak about them, we are really speaking about our thoughts about external stimuli indirectly apprehended through our sense organs.

Where did you go?

If we are talking about idealism vs materialism again, then I don’t agree with direct apprehension of external phenomena.

I don’t know what you are talking about then. Fill in the variables so I know what you are talking about, please.

I don’t know what you are saying. Meta-ethics, normative ethics, and descriptive ethics are all different things.

If you're asking me which one I'd say, I'd say that interpretations are endless just in case they keep arriving, otherwise they're not. Same as with anything else. — Terrapin Station

Nice

That's like saying "There's no source for anything whatsoever other than suspended pigments applied to canvases. That we can paint, anyway." — Terrapin Station

I don’t understand this. It seems like a category error or something.

Yes, without a doubt. There is no source other than ourselves for anything whatsoever. That we’re conscious of, anyway. — Mww

I don’t think Terrapin is going to agree to that, but we’ll see what he says.

I agree with both of you.

:up:

I hate it when someone in a discussion says, “Just Google it.” It’s as if he is saying, “I’m too lazy to cite examples to bolster my argument, so you should do the work for me.”

So “morality” must always refer to acceptable/unacceptable behavior is a necessary truth. Moral beliefs can change so instances of moral beliefs are contingent truths. I think that is what creativesoul was saying.

I value different things in different people. My wife, for example, is responsible, kind, loving, empathetic, and loyal. My older son, for example, is sarcastic (in a good way) and funny, and I like it when he’s cheerful (though he isn’t always). My younger son is smart and analytical.

I think I hit on a lot of the values you named.

And what it is for me to say "He understands me" is for me, from my perspective, to think that his comments make sense relative to what I'm saying (from my perspective). — Terrapin Station

But there are objective referents that have to be agreed upon.

What do you think makes distinguishing necessary from contingent truths important? Like....why are there two of them anyway? — Mww

I don’t really know the import of it besides having different epistemic value. Also, I don’t know how creativesoul was using it.

It’s from Kripke’s Naming and Necessity. It helps one distinguish necessary from contingent truths.

Possible worlds are stipulated. One cannot logically conceive of “what that sign represents” to be other than what it represents given the meaning of the word “stop”, its color, location, etc. I would agree that it is a rigid designator.

I also find it amusing that someone who claims that all interpretation is subjective and neither true or false is so concerned about my understand what you "really" meant by some statement or another. — NKBJ

That’s a good point. However, I think Terrapin only uses the term “objective” to mean “extramental”.

"Interpretations can't occur extramentally" is another limitation I'd agree with. — Terrapin Station

It would be nonsensical to say they could. Who would claim that?

There's zero rigidity to "what it represents" though. — Terrapin Station

So there is a possible world where “stop” means “go” or “smoke a cigarette”?

That’s the thing. I thought I was justified at the times. The first time, I was wrongly informed that the guy had raped my ex-wife’s best friend. Turns out she is just crazy and wrongly accuses men quite often. I learned that later.

The second time, a guy was harassing my wife at a bar. I just acted without thinking. I should’ve just informed the bouncers and got him kicked out instead of resorting to violence.

I understand the effects of adrenaline firsthand. It’s impossible to control yourself when it takes over. The medication I take now is working, so I haven’t felt the rage I once did.

Oh. Well, you did a better job of explaining your position there than you had in some previous posts.

I’ve been in a couple of serious fights, but I’ve managed to never get arrested. In hindsight, I believe that I should have avoided those fights, though. I want to be a lover, not a fighter.

Do you have a professional background in philosophy?

If you stopped at the stop sign, the rigidity of the designator is validated. If you didn’t, the designator is no less rigid, but you disregarded it for whatever reason. All the designator needs, is for what it represents to be understood, not necessarily agreed with. — Mww

Very good explanation, teacher. :smile:

Are you a physicist or do you just have an interest in physics?

The smart vs bad at writing? I now realize you are super smart. I’m just not accustomed to your way of speaking.

It is required the wavefunction collapse to a probability density of 1, in order to recognize a certainty.
(Sorry.......that just popped in out of nowhere. Disregard) — Mww

:lol: smartass

“...The capacity of experiencing Pleasure or Pain on the occasion of a mental representation, is called ‘Feeling,’ because Pleasure and Pain contain only what is subjective in the relations of our mental activity. They do not involve any relation to an object that could possibly furnish a knowledge of it as such; they cannot even give us a knowledge of our own mental state. For even Sensations, considered apart from the qualities which attach to them on account of the modifications of the Subject, as, for instance, in reference to Red, Sweet, and such like, are referred as constituent elements of knowledge to Objects, whereas Pleasure or Pain felt in connection with what is red or sweet, express absolutely nothing that is in the Object, but merely a relation to the Subject. And for the reason just stated, Pleasure and Pain considered in themselves cannot be more precisely defined. All that can be further done with regard to them is merely to point out what consequences they may have in certain relations, in order to make the knowledge of them available practically...” — Mww

What is this from?

Very good responses to creativesoul. I understood all of it. Thanks for dumbing it down for me.

Although most geniuses are shit at teaching.

The reductionism necessary to validate my argument is so far down in the weeds it couldn’t possibly pass the wtf test. — Mww

Ah, I get you. You really are too smart for us. Try talking to us as if you were explaining something to children.

Necessary to validate? Or necessary to invalidate? This is another example of me not understanding you.

:lol:

Sorry. That was meant for Galuchat.

You’re probably an angry alcoholic.

Psychiatric patients like me have many years experience with psychiatry. I have twenty years experience in seeing that it works.