Doesn't a lie/falsehood refer to something too? It refers to fictitious events or objects but the reference is there, isn't it? — TheMadFool

If a statement refers to a fictitious event, then it's true. If I say 'harry potter wears glasses', what I say is true. The problem is, the perpetrator of a lie isn't referring to a fictitious event, that is to say, he isn't telling the truth about a fictitious event. He's telling falsehoods about supposedly real events.

What about nonsense? Nonsensical sentences don't refer hence the name ''nonsense''. — TheMadFool

Nonsensical statements aren't true.

I'm not sure. Perhaps an idea.

So the point is, the phrase you posted "the cat is on the mat", is not really about any cat or any mat at all, it's about some sort of demonstration you're trying to make. — Metaphysician Undercover

The statement is about some hypothetical cat on a mat. But the point was to make a demonstration about words being about things. There's a difference between a statement and a point.

I'm talking hypothetically. It refers to a hypothetical state of affairs. Does that make sense?

My last discussions were practically dudes. :rofl: :chin: :brow:

What's grinding your gears? — Purple Pond

My last few discussions are practically duds. :cry:

You ask, if there were an objective meaning of life...

What would it be? — Andrew4Handel

I don't believe there is an objective meaning of life. But if there was, I think it would answer the big questions. Such as why are we here? Why are conscious. Why are we on this forum right now discussing it. It would explain explain you whole entire life and why you were placed on this earth. And not just a mechanistic historical explanation. It would be a totally different kind of explanation.

I think you can validly challenge someone about the quality of life and their quality of life on an empirical basis. — Andrew4Handel

You mean the question of the quality of someone's life can be settled by empirical facts about them?

The alternative where someone is always right about the quality of life means you cannot differentiate between quality of life and is a subjective nihilism, where the individual is always right about their interpretation of the external world. — Andrew4Handel

How about an alternative where we cannot quantify the quality of everyone's life?

The ad absurdum is that a child dying of malnutrition in a war torn slum could claim to have a good quality of life. But if you accept this would be an absurd claim then there is some objective standard. Also examples are such as the Holocaust, famine in general, mental illness and cancer. — Andrew4Handel

Aren't you arguing form particular to the general here? What is your justification for the case that we can make an empirical judgement about all the quality of life issues, and not just the cases where people are in deep suffering?

So once you accept somethings are highly undesirable you can start an empirical utilitarian calculation about the quality of life. — Andrew4Handel

What about the quality of lives that people are happy? Without mention to happiness, your thesis leads, at best, to a negative utilitarian calculation.

:lol: no, I'm a 3rd year philosophy student at uni. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Shame, I was looking for a therapist. A philosopher is no good because he is the opposite of a therapist in that therapist tries to stop you from overthinking while a philosopher encourages it. :razz:

Are there any of those around here? — Sir2u

Shhh... You don't want to wake the beast!

Although I think about suicide often, and constantly wish I wasn't alive, I don't take the idea of me committing suicide seriously.

Even if I had the guts and the ability (which I don't), the four main reasons I don't commit suicide are because:
1) I can't do such a thing to my family. It would rip them apart emotionally.
2) Most attempted suicides don't result in suicide, and I can get seriously injured for the rest of my life. Making my life worse off.
3) I have a whole life ahead of me, and since no one can predict the future, life is uncertain. Things can, and do, change for the better.
4) The process of killing yourself is very painful.

Trees are superior to humans because trees can live hundreds of years and humans can't.

Are you a psychologist/psychoanalyst by any chance? :razz:

How is your social life at the moment? Are you getting enough time with people you like to spend time with or have you become a recluse as of late? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Ah, there's two problems. I live in an ultra-orthodox Jewish community and I'm no longer religious, so it's very difficult to make friends with the religious folk because I'm different. I also suffer from social anxiety disorder. I'm just terrified of people judging me. Given these two problems, it's hard for me to make and keep friends. So, yes, I am sort of a recluse. I spend most of my time in my room on the internet. Why do you ask?

. Also, if you think about it, you can't be that addicted considering you joined this particular forum 2 years ago and only have a total of 283 posts (about 12 posts a month) — Mr Phil O'Sophy

I'm talking about being addicted the past two weeks where I practically post a discussion every day. And my addiction isn't only writing regular posts. I don't spend a ridiculous amount of time writing the posts. No, I spend most of my time compulsively checking if anyone responded to what I've wrote. It's like I'm waiting for my daily dose of dope.

You're a good contributor to decent conversation. :up: — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Thanks, that means a lot to me. :grin:

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the wisest of them all? — S

Mirror: You, my king, are wise so true. But the young King is a thousand times wiser than you.

What was your initial intention for joining? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Nowadays I use this forum because I love writing. And I especially like it when people respond to what I’ve written. I'm not really interested in any specific philosophical topic.

When I first started on the philosophy forum, it was the old forum many years ago, my first post was inspired by presuppositional apologetics. The idea that such things as the uniformity of nature and laws of logic were uncertain fascinated me. They try to argue that without God you have no justification for the laws of logic, absolute morality, and the uniformity of nature. This kick started my interest in philosophy. So, my initial reason for joining was because the forum offered a venue for my growing interest in epistomology, all thanks to presuppositional apologetics. My first post was on the justification of reason, I believe. My writing was terrible back then, but it gradually got better.

Suffering, of course, comes in 57 varieties. — Bitter Crank

Just like Heinz!

No human should ever experience any unnecessary, unwanted suffering... — NKBJ

That's your opinion.

I still think this is an oddly worded question, and I'm not sure what you're getting at specifically. — NKBJ

I don't know how I could have worded it better. Perhaps I shouldn't have created this thread. Too late. :razz:

My question could be rehashed. How much unwanted suffering should humans endure before we, as a society, do something about it? Is that better?

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger (sometimes).

No unnecessary amount of suffering is okay. — NKBJ

It's not necessary when you get hurt getting shot by paintball gun, but it's okay. Your still having fun when you play paintball. That's just one counterexample.

But what do you mean by "too much"? Like too much to keep living? Or too much to...what? — NKBJ

I mean over the threshold that no human being should ever experience.

Damn, I really thought I was being original.

I don’t know what y’all talking about, but the last word is ‘Zyzzyva’. I just checked it out in the dictionary.

I'm not sure about existence, but according to Einstein,"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Yes, I know, I am truly wise. — S

Yeah, I can tell. It inspired you to create a whole thread about it.

What's grinding your gears?

People who think they are really wise and everything.

Too bad your name is S and not Sapientia. I mean, that name would really fit your description.

Resident Evil Biohazard. It's really scary.

Hi Purple Pond, I don’t know if you saw my link which discusses this very issue. I hope you take the time to read it. — Janis

Sorry, not interested. Have a good day.

Not to speak for @Terrapin Station, but sticks and stones...

There are loads of examples of how speech can be intimidating. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

And let's not forget the effects of bullying. https://www.stopbullying.gov/at-risk/effects/index.html

I'll let @Mr Phil O'Sophy take my place because it seems like he knows much more about Islam than I do.

with pejorative you mean prerogative? — DiegoT

:gasp: Yes.

Are you in favour of banning Quran and hadiths, or at least their use in public libraries and schools, and also public apologies of these texts? Quran has hundreds of verses calling to violence and hate towards non believers; it says explicitly that God is okay with slavery, and with disciplining women that refuse to obey. It contains twice as many verses against Jews as the Mein Kampff. — DiegoT

No because I don't think Qurans are generally harmful. You say the Quran incites violence, but the vast majority of Muslims are not violent. I think banning religious books will do more harm than good.

Absolutely, and that is why James Watson was stripped of his titles and had his Twitter account restricted, because he is those things — Inis

Well according to Vox, James Watson has a whole history of making sexist and racist comments.

:rofl:

We are here just to listen to complaints, not to address it. If that bothers you you know what to do.

Done.

Moderators: please delete this thread. I created it by accident. I didn't get to finish what I wanted to say. (I pressed enter by mistake.)

Edit: never mind.