To link Nietzsche and Rand is to misunderstand both.

Sound vaguely Nietzschean? — schopenhauer1

But Nietzsche's Ubermensch is not resentful. He does not advocate or feed off of resentment.

And yesterday's. — schopenhauer1

It would be interesting to trace that back. When did resentment become central to Republicans? One might think that it is the have-nots who would be resentful, but those with wealth and power can also be resentful. In the name of freedom they stand against any policy or regulation that impedes their ability to become wealthier and more powerful.

One should be loyal to the truth, not to other people, or movements, or political parties. — GRWelsh

While I agree with most of what you have said, loyalty to "the truth" is often loyalty to an ideology called "truth". When it and people stand on opposite sides the consequences are inhuman

God, this reminds me so much why I despise Ayn Randian philosophy — schopenhauer1

A favorite of today's Republicans.

I am interested to see how you will develop this distinction.

I have not looked into this but I suspect that at least in part he is playing on the singularity/duality/plurality of man/men, male/female and god/gods found in Genesis 1.

From The Gay Science:

22

Man and Woman
Seize forcibly the wench for whom you feel
Thus thinks a man. Women don't rob, they steal.

63
Woman in music.- Why is it that warm, rainy winds inspire
a musical mood and the inventive pleasure of melodies? Are
they not the same winds that fill the churches and arouse
thoughts of love in women?

In both cases (and perhaps others) the heading is singular 'woman' but what is said is plural 'women'.

If 'woman' as concept is considered does the same hold for 'man'?

According to 22 men use force but women are a force:

The magic and the most powerful effect of women is, in philosophical language, action at a distance, actio in distans; but this requires first of all and above all-distance.

(60)

His opinion of women, like every man’s, is an objectification of his own emotion towards them, which is obviously one of fear. “Forget not thy whip”–but nine women out of ten would get the whip away from him, and he knew it, so he kept away from women,

You and Russell obviously don't know what the whip is. Yet another metaphor hidden in plain sight. The whip is what Zarathustra uses to create dance and song. And can be seen in the second dance song. So the old woman said to Zarathustra "forget not thy dance and song." Those elements of Dionysus that women love. — Vaskane

Who are Nietzsche's women? They include Life and Wisdom. (Zarathustra, "The Dance Song")

Nietzsche begins Beyond Good and Evil by talking about another woman:

Suppose that truth is a woman – and why not?

How men treat flesh and blood women, and how they respond, is taken up in The Gay Science. Here we find a discussion of how the "weaker sex" exerts its strength. Behind much of Nietzsche's criticism of women is a criticism of men.

Seems to me Haley might come out of the wreckage a viable candidate. — Wayfarer

She is trying to appeal to all sides. I don't think it is a winning strategy.

She said she would pardon Trump. She will not be able to distance herself from him.

Because we do not have an adequate understanding of matter.

The puzzle is based on a concept of matter that makes the problem the equivalent of explain how a rock could be conscious.

It's simply how they are already. — baker

In part this is true.Those who voted for him because of his anti-abortion stance already held that view. Those who are anti-gay or anti-trans did not become that way because of Trump. Those who are anti-regulation in many cases did not become that way because of Trump. Those who are racist and white supremacists did not become that way because of Trump. In all these cases he simply fed their fears and added accelerant.

Those who believe he is a good business manager bought into a false image and are ignorant of his "small loan" from his father (one million dollars plus) his business failures, his cheating, his stiffing contractors, his misrepresentations, and his "business strategy of repeated bankruptcies.

He covers his failure to deliver on promises by making further promises.

It seems to be easier to propose that people are basically good, but weak; than to consider the possibility that people are basically evil and strong. — baker

Both are distortions. Some people are basically good and others are not. Some are strong or weak in some ways but not others. There is no correlation between being weak or strong and good or bad.

Alexander the Great had followers who believed he was the son of a god. — Athena

What do you think this meant to them?

It is a term we find in the Hebrew Bible. It is a term used by Paul in much the same way. A son of God is someone, a human being, who holds a special favored place in God's eyes. Due to the influence of Greece and Rome it came to be understood as something more. A son of God was transformed into the only begotten son of God and of the same substance, homoousios.

Why would you think Jesus was a real person and not Abraham? — Athena

As far as I know, there is no evidence that Abraham was a real person. What difference do you think it makes?

Should we passively let people die if that is the will of God, or should we take a moral stand and do what people working together can do? — Athena

I agree. Arguments based on the will of God are incoherent.

Rather than argue about whether Abraham was a real person I think that it is within the stories that the substantive issues lie. The story of the sacrifice of Isaac, for example. It is held up as a shining example of faith, but I see it as an example of fanaticism.

Today I was wondering if Trump supporters are the least bit worried that Trump will become a dictator. — GRWelsh

Since Trump was elected Plato's warning about how democracies degenerate into tyrannies through demagogues has frequently pointed to. The demagogue poses as a champion of the people. Because they feel powerless and unable to make things better for themselves they turn to someone who promises to do it for them. They are willing to cede power in order to get the results they hope for, but rather than seeing this as ceding power they believe they are gaining power.

Some retain faith in a system of checks and balances. They trust that there are limits on what Trump will be able to do in a second term. Some have faith in God and believe Trump is doing God's work. For them theocracy is preferable to democracy. Some have lost all faith in the system and see the only solution to be to destroy it. In an odd reversal of 60's liberalism the state, now controlled by those same liberals, is still the enemy. The major difference is that the Trumpsters have a powerful propaganda machine and have convinced a large segment of the population that the "mainstream media" cannot be trusted or believed. It is the enemy. Believe instead whatever we tell you, for we alone can be trusted. Dictators operate under state sponsored media. Something that up until now we have not had. Why should Trump supporters be worried when they are told repeatedly, day after day, that the "Dems" are destroying our country but Trump will save us?

I really don't care that you criticize Biden. What I care about is reasoned argument. It has become evident that will not be forthcoming.

Also, I think your attempt at likening me to Trump is really immature. — Tzeentch

Pointing to the same argumentative tactics that someone uses is not likening you to anyone.

I take the key point to be the transformation of perception — Wayfarer

I think that is what Zhuangzi is questioning, the transformation of perception. What do we know of it other than what others have said?

When Dogen talks about mountains walking I might think he means that even the most stationary thing moves and changes. That is a way of looking at it, but it is not a transformation of perception.

There's some polemics in that. — Wayfarer

An anti-polemic polemic.

Confucious is often gently satirised in Taoist lore for being uptight and conventionally virtuous. — Wayfarer

Contrary to Kongzi's filial piety, Mozi advocated impartial care. He and his followers, the Mohists. present rational arguments for why this is best. In place of the family is the state. Whereas families divide the state unifies. In place of the cultivation of virtue there is acting in accord with reason and the stronger argument.

Zhuangzi does not take sides or attempt to resolve such arguments. How are the people to be unified? Both sides are concerned with the same thing. Strong family ties can foster allegiance to the group, but loyalty to the family can lead to differences and competition with those who are not members of the family. Impartial care can lead to lack of care, to indifference. Can one hold to reason and impartial care when others do not?

fig leaves don't make good clothes it would be a very stupid human who doesn't know that. — Athena

You asked: "how do we have knowledge". The point is that knowledge of how to make clothes is something that begins with rudimentary attempts, not developed knowledge.

And I strongly doubt that a metaphorical god made their clothes out of animal skins. — Athena

Why would you doubt that in a metaphor of god making clothes out of animal skins god made their clothes out of animal skins?

How did the god kill the animal and treat the skins? Do you know how hard it is to cut and sew leather? — Athena

When you ask how we have knowledge I took it you were asking about human beings.

Surely humans in cold regions learned to do that for themselves without the help of a god ... — Athena

Right. Do you think their early attempts were as proficient as later attempts? In the story nothing is said about god helping them learn. He did for them what they were not yet able to do for themselves.

You answer your own question. They learned for themselves.

Isn't there something wrong with telling us what is good about us is bad and should be punished? — Athena

This is not the way I read the story. Knowledge is not simply good for us, or bad for us. Both are aspects of knowledge. It is not a matter of punishment but of consequences. Knowledge brings both benefits and harm.

People in warm climates such as Hawaii and Africa have no problem exposing their bodies. — Athena

People in warm climates have a problem with vulnerability. They must protect themselves. They must guard against being exposed to whatever it is that can harm them.

And you left out the snake who lured Eve into eating the fruit. — Athena

I wanted to avoid bringing up too much at the same time.

Maybe this god and the snake had bodies or maybe they were just metaphors. — Athena

As I read it the snake's body is part of the metaphor. Consider the way snakes move. In order to move right they move left then right then left. The movement is a metaphor for deviousness.

For sure a person has to have a set of beliefs before anything in the Bible makes sense. — Athena

So much is true in order for any story to make sense. Too often the problem is assuming the story matches the beliefs one brings to it.

Do you think less sophisticated people knew the difference between a metaphor and something that is real? — Athena

If you mean people from ancient cultures, I think they might be more sophisticated than you give them credit for. Understanding stories based on the dichotomy real and metaphorical is not very sophisticated.

Remember the witch hunts and fear of being possessed? — Athena

Some stories are more insightful than others.

I am not sure where Fooloso4 stands on the Christian thing, — Athena

I think Jesus was a real person, but that real person is not the person(s) created by the legends or the persons created by interpretation of the NT legends. The "Christian thing" has from the beginning been different things.

I don't know how anyone can seriously deny US involvement in the Maidan coup and the dumpster fire that it turned into today. — Tzeentch

Are you aware that this is a standard Trumpian rhetorical tactic, claiming that everyone knows or everyone says or everyone thinks?

I attribute primary (though not all) responsibility to the US, and the people in the US that orchestrated it are sitting in the White House right now. — Tzeentch

Again, an allegation without substantive evidence is not a substitute for an argument.

Rather than posting an hour plus video how about explaining in your own words or at least a transcript of why the Ukraine is the West's fault, and specifically why Biden is to blame.

I don't know. You'd have to ask a Russian resident. — frank

I don't know either. The answer we are likely to get from them will depend on whether Putin is listening. But whatever their perception might be it might not be a good measure of how the economy is doing or will do in the next few years.

It would be interesting to hear what Putin really thinks about the economy. That it can continue to sustain the war might be enough for now.

Biden was VP during the Maidan, and Ukraine was his portfolio. Of course he was involved. — Tzeentch

Being "involved" might mean several different things. What I said is that he cannot be blamed. Are you putting the blame on him?

The entire current administration was involved in the Maidan. Ukraine is their project, and it crashed and burned in a most spectacular fashion, sadly taking Ukraine itself along with it. — Tzeentch

More accusations without substantive evidence. Are you blaming the entire current administration?
Are you claiming that without the US involvement there would not have been a conflict?

You don't think the Biden administration has been an unmitigated disaster? Ok. — Tzeentch

No. What could Trump or anyone else have done do prevent or fix the messes we are in?

I suppose it will forever remain a mystery to you then why people vote Trump. — Tzeentch

Not at all. I can sum it up in two words. Ignorance and resentment. Many see him as a savior or hero who will save us.

War is always profitable ... for some.

He wants people at home to feel like everything is fine, and it's not going to be without that boost to the economy from the war. — frank

How do the people feel? How will they feel long term? How closely aligned are the perception and the reality?

That project sought the incorporation of Ukraine into NATO, and zero attention was paid to Russia's many objections, who spoke about red lines, fundamental security threats, etc. — Tzeentch

His administration is committed to Ukraine joining NATO despite Putin's rhetoric. It is a defensive move in response to Putin's aggression.

I'm not aware of any members of the Trump administration handing out cookies on the Maidan. — Tzeentch

Right. The Maidan conflict predates Trump and cannot be blamed on Biden.

To many people's dismay, Putin and Trump kinda liked each other. — Tzeentch

To many people's dismay, Trump aligned himself with several autocratic leaders. This is why he did not press the issue of Ukraine. For him the issue was to implicate Biden. If elected the fear is he will side with Putin against Ukraine, against NATO, and against anyone and anything that stands in the way of the aligned autocrats.

What I'm trying to make clear is that Biden has been a disaster in his own right. — Tzeentch

Except you haven't. The post hoc blame game should not be mistaken for insightful political analysis.

the US blocked UN Security Council resolutions calling for a cease fire, and expressed its unconditional support for Israel. — Tzeentch

This is quite different than:

The US has blocked a cease fire several times already. — Tzeentch

A resolution calling for a cease fire is not a cease fire. Both sides in the conflict must agree to a cease fire. It is not as if they did and the US blocked it.




.

How do we have knowledge? If we believe we magically have knowledge then don't we have a serious problem? — Athena

The metaphor of the tree of knowledge is not intended to be an explanation, magical or otherwise. But the story does point to desire and vulnerability as leading to knowledge. Even before eating Eve saw that the fruit of the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom (3:6). They saw that they were naked and sewed together fig leaves to cover themselves. (3:7) This was the beginning of technical knowledge. But this attempt was not adequate. God made garments of skin for them (3:21). The problem of nakedness is that they were aware that they were vulnerable, exposed. They hid because they were naked and afraid. (3:10)

Desire also leads to sexual knowledge. It is interesting that woman's desire will be for her husband (3:16) but nothing is said about a husband's desire for his wife. For man knowledge is tied to the need to produce food from the ground. Agriculture.

Socrates thought we knew everything but when we are born we are in a state of forgetfulness. — Athena

The myth of anamnesis. I discuss it a bit in my thread on Plato's Phaedo.

Obviously that would be way too strong of a claim. — Tzeentch

In that case, if you cannot rule out Putin attacking if Trump was president, the connection with Biden is tenuous.

He is responsible for knowingly sowing the seeds for conflict ...

What seeds of conflict did he sow?

The involvement of all of the people I've named is not controversial or even secret. — Tzeentch

The involvement of these people is that they are acting within their official capacities as government officials in the Biden administrations. Of course they are involved! As would members of a Trump administration, unless you think Trump's "solution" would be to turn his back and ignore
what is going on.

The US has blocked a cease fire several times already. — Tzeentch

I am referring to Putin.

So, Hamas and Israel have agreed to a cease fire and the US has blocked it?

The links between the Biden administration and Russia's invasion are crystal clear. — Tzeentch

Are you claiming that this would not have happened if Trump was in office?

Are you going to blame Biden for Putin's invasion of Cimea in 2014?

In response to the question of evidence for your post hoc claim "crystal clear" won't cut it.

If there is a cease fire will you give Biden credit or is he only responsible when it comes to placing blame?

Biden is old but the history of the region is much older.

Ironically, Putin attacked Ukraine when Biden became president... — Tzeentch

Why is that ironic?

...most likely due to Biden's long standing involvement in Ukraine. — Tzeentch

What evidence do you have of this post hoc claim?

Then there's Biden's cart blanche to Netanyahu — Tzeentch

With funding provided by Congress.

I often see Trump supporters call his detractors "Trump haters" as if our judgment is clouded by some irrational emotion, as if our mere dislike of him is itself evidence that we aren't capable of any sort of objectivity or reason. — GRWelsh

In typical fashion the Trumpsters they gets things backwards, as if it were because he is hated that he cannot be seen for who he is. The truth is, because they cannot see him for who he is there is a good chance he will win the election.

Tyrants want to be loved. Above all else they desire recognition. Trump's gold toilets and other ostentatious signs of wealth are nothing more than a means to this end. This is why he claimed, contrary to the evidence, that his inauguration was the biggest ever. It is an essential factor in his attempt to overturn the election and the claim that he won the popular vote. His neediness is tangible. This is the source of both his weakness and his danger.

What does it mean to be like "one of us" and to whom is that God speaking? — Athena

What it means is having knowledge and not dying. This is elaborated on in the story of the Tower of Babel where God's concern is that man will be able to do whatever he wills to do.

I take it he is speaking to the other gods. Note how in Genesis one notice the shift back and forth from the singular to the plural with regard to both man and god.

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness ...

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Genesis 1:26-27)

I want to know more. Which philosophers did your class examine?

In the Chinese philosophy class we read:

Kongzi (Confucius), Mozi, Mengzi (Mencius),Laozi (“The Daodejing”), and Zhuangzi.

The Daodejing is perhaps the most popular. Kongzi is quite different but also popular. My favorite is Zhuangzi. I will be starting a thread on him soon.

In the Japanese philosophy course, from what I remember, we read Dogen and Hakuin. Although not primary sources we read on the topics of Bushido, Wabi-sabi.

There are others that I forgot. I will be away from my books until the spring.

But mind you, until relatively recently I have done my reading on my own without others to discuss them with

Yes, this is a problem. When someone asks me what they should read I find it very difficult to answer.

I think the quotes you chose make it clear Judaism is a tribal religion, not an explanation of a universal god whose children are equal under the sun.

That was a later development within Judaism. It has a very long history. It is often assumed that it was from the start monotheistic. It was not. The move from "our god" to the only god we worship to the only god in Isaiah happened over that long history.

Oh darn, I am dealing with a mental breakdown. My brain absolutely will not follow the linear process essential to comprehensive thinking.

On the contrary it may be a sign of progress. Perhaps comprehensive thinking is not linear. Wittgenstein said:

When you are philosophizing you have to descend into primeval chaos and feel at home there.

(Culture and Value)

"Originalism" is a term used to disguise the indeterminacy of legal interpretation by appearing to give it a solid foundation. It is a slogan that does not match practice. One need look no further than Scalia's decision on the second amendment.

I don't think it is so much that they were appointed by Trump but that they were appointed because they held to a conservative political ideology. Ironically, Trump himself is completely devoid of any political ideology. "Trump" is the brand that caters to the Christian ideologues and plutocrats whose perks the conservative justices enjoy.

... the standard, common, agreed upon definitions/meanings of terms — Alkis Piskas

Herein lies the problem. Philosophers often use terms in idiosyncratic ways and in ways that are no longer standard. This is not a reason to reject dictionaries but a reason to be cautious about the dictionaries being used. When reading philosophy a glossary of terms related to particular philosophers and schools will be more helpful than a general dictionary. In addition, a definition may be a good starting point, but one must look at the context in which the term is being used rather than insisting that a philosopher means X because this is how the term is defined somewhere.

I think that is likely, but would replace "because" with "based on the excuse that they're too busy".

Philosophy should never be memorizing what was said but always be about understanding concepts and independent thinking. — Athena

It is often a game of wack-a-mole theorizing. Defending and attacking competing theories. Popping up again with modifications only to be wacked back down again.

I want to know so much more about why you chose Asian philosophy. — Athena

It chose me. It is common to ask an instructor to teach courses outside their area. Some instructors will just find a textbook, and let it do most of the work. Some textbooks have teacher editions that discussion questions and sample tests. That is not the way I do things.

I use primary texts. Rather than reading about philosophers and schools we read and attempt to interpret and discuss their work. To keep this short I had to do a lot of reading to prep.

I have a terrible feeling that Christianity has closed out those wonderful sources of wisdom. — Athena

Earlier editions of these works suffered from Christian influenced translation. This is no longer the case. We now have available translations done by scholars who have studied the language and the literature as well as western philosophy.

I don't know exactly how to approach this subject but I hope you say more about that choice. — Athena

You might start with something like this

Reading about what the translator says about translation is often a good clue.

There is no problem getting sources to validate the existence of Abraham. — Athena

The problem is these sources.

We can get some idea of the problem at issue from Exodus:

And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, `The LORD, the God of your fathers--the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob--has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.
(Exodus 3:13-15)

Why is there a question of God's name? There are several different names for gods in the Hebrew Bible. Monotheism is often assumed and following this the names are taken to be different names for the same god, but monotheism was a later development. In other words, the problem Moses faces is which god will the people to heed. The answer avoids names and says instead that the god of your fathers is the same god, the god of Abraham, the god of Isaac, and the god of Jacob. Moses unites the various stories and beliefs that developed over time among the Egyptian Jews.

It is, however, questionable whether Moses, the great unifier existed either. In fact, the Hebrew Bible is the work of unnamed unifiers.

Are you thinking the story of Adam and Eve is anything other than a story equal to Aesop's Fables? — Athena

I do not know Aesop's Fables well enough to say that they are equal, but some stories are more than just a story.

Both stories are about a god's concern about what humans will do with knowledge but the Greek story does not blame the first man and woman and he does not punish them for doing something wrong ... — Athena

There is a great deal more going on in the story of the first man. For one, he blames Eve and God for giving her to him. A bit more about this gift. In order to make Eve God destroys Adam's unity or wholeness, which results, among other things, in the need to make two one.

Rather than the focus on punishment I take the story to be more about the consequences of having knowledge. God sums it up:

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” (Genesis 3:22)

Man should not be allowed to become gods. Death, like life, is both a blessing and a curse. The dualism of blessings and curses in this story should not be overlooked. They go hand in hand. They are tied to the dualism of knowledge. Knowledge is productive. Its fruits are both good and bad. Adam knew Eve.

Socrates was also condemned to drink the hemlock for his impiety. A person arguing the gods are not good does not cancel out the fact that the popular opinion was the gods are good. — Athena

Socrates called himself a midwife for men. He helps them birth their opinions. In the Euthyphro we see what issues from this opinion. As a standard, popular opinion is not always a high standard.

Yeah, that happened about the same time I posted. When I saw I posted an addendum.

At least they were quick to decide not to decide.

I agree with the general idea of moving slowly, but not in a case like this.

Why are Trump and his lawyers objecting to Jack Smith's request to the Supreme Court to quickly rule on whether presidential immunity shields Trump from prosecution in the federal 2020 election interference case? If, as he professes, he is innocent we might think he would prefer to have it ruled on quickly to remove doubt in voters minds. In typical fashion,Trump prefers to have things drag on until after the election. Given his bluster and rhetoric, however, it would follow that even a decision against him would only helps him. Perhaps he is not as able to fool himself as he is at fooling the Trumpsters.

The basis of their argument is based on two claims.

First that Smith does not provide a reason for the date proposed.

Second, they say it should be "resolved in a cautious, deliberative manner — not at breakneck speed" and that the justices should not "rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon."

The first argument is weak. If there is nothing special about March 4th then there is nothing special about March 3rd or 1st either. The argument could be used to push for an even earlier date. They have not said what they would consider to be a reasonable date. If the proposed date was April or May 4th the would make the same argument. The only satisfactory date for the is after the election.

The second argument rests on the questionable assumption that in order to comply they would have to proceed without caution in a matter that is deliberative, that they would be have to rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon. None of this, of course, is true. As they no doubt know, the way to move forward quickly is by putting it at the top of the list of cases to be decided.

If the court decides quickly and against Trump they can still use this argument in an attempt to persuade voters that the decision was rushed and Trump was treated unfairly. And, of course, the Supreme Court will be added to the list of the enemies of the United States of Trump.

Another fine example of Trump doing what he accuses others of doing, using the courts for political ends.

Added: As I was posting this the court made a decision not to fast track. A cowardly move. They can't avoid dealing with Trump. They are deciding to not decide, a decision that will harm their reputation more than the fear of making the wrong decision.

This is possible because you are already in possession of the meaning, which you are able to supply to the text in order to make sense of it — NOS4A2

If you are already in possession of the meaning of a word then you would not have to look it up to find out what it means. It makes no sense to say that we go to a dictionary to supply meaning to the words we look up to find the meaning of.

If meaning was in the words, learning the language would be unnecessary. — NOS4A2

You have done a good job of convincing anyone who did not already realize it that you do not know how words work. Learning a language involves learning the meaning of words in that language. You stubbornly and ignorantly cling to the false idea that words are just marks and sounds devoid of meaning.

It was my understanding that you believed words transport meaning from A to B ... — NOS4A2

No. I used your term 'transport' . It is not a term I would use in this context, but we work with what we have. In any case, to transport is to convey, and meaning is conveyed through words. In this case, from a dictionary to the reader. So close enough.

What I denied is that I believe:

You’d just hear the word or say the word, and the meaning would float through the air in the sound-waves, from one mind to the other. — NOS4A2

But all of this has been covered already. It is clear that you are fond of arguing, but since facts, truth, and understanding may bring an argument to its end, you avoid them.

Biology can precede meanings suppose. — Corvus

Yes, and biology can somethings betray what we really mean.

If words had meaning you wouldn’t need a definition. — NOS4A2

In a dictionary words are used to define the meaning of other words. You might need a dictionary to define some of the words used to define the word in question, but it is not an endless cycle. Some may rely on a dictionary more than others but no one can use a dictionary who does not understand the meaning of any of the words.

You’d just hear the word or say the word, and the meaning would float through the air in the sound-waves, from one mind to the other. Except they don’t do what you believe they do ... — NOS4A2

That is not what I believe words do. It does, however, seem to be a picture of your own making that you have either struggled against or set up to knock down.

so you refer to a dictionary, contradicting your own claims. — NOS4A2

Do you mean my claim that:

Words have meaning and the words used in the dictionary inform us of the meaning of the word in question. — Fooloso4

?

Your biology allows for language acquisition, and determines the faculty of language in general. — NOS4A2

Yes, you are agreeing with the first part of what I said above:

Our biology plays a role in our ability to use language ... — Fooloso4

Now address the second part:

...but the fact that I speak English and not Chinese is not determined by my biology. — Fooloso4

Orbán has Trump's back. — jorndoe

Trumpsters see this in a very favorable light. They prefer autocrats to the rule of law.

Lawmakers establish what the law is. — NOS4A2

They do not and cannot do this without WORDS.

Other than that I can’t follow your non-sequiturs. — NOS4A2

There is a difference between your inability to follow an argument and an argument that does not follow from what has already been said. Don't blame the argument for what you are unable to do.

The truth is though that I do think you are able and just resort to claiming non-sequiturs rather than admitting that you are wrong.