It's relevant because your hypothetical scenario assumes the capacity to designate a particular time and a particular place when there are no human beings. — Metaphysician Undercover
So, let's start from the beginning. All human beings die. What next? — Metaphysician Undercover
There is a rock, but no one is there to perceive it, because we all died an hour previously.
The word "rock" means the solid mineral material forming part of the surface of the Earth and other similar planets, exposed on the surface or underlying the soil, in my language, which is based on the English language, and which you can simply refer to as English or my language. However, no one is there to understand what this word means, because we all died an hour previously.
I'll type the same shit over and over, I'll reexplain things every way I can think of doing so as long as someone seems interested in a conversation. — Terrapin Station
Then you have more patience than me. I don't like being manipulated into an unfair one-sided relationship, which is what I suspect you of trying to do here. — S
Yeah, I basically have an endless amount of patience, which was beneficial when I taught, which I did for a number of years. — Terrapin Station
And you caved in when those you were teaching were trying it on, I suppose? Not putting in enough effort, and wanting an easy ride? No? Then don't try that shit with me. — S
If anyone ever didn't seem to understand something, ever asked for an explanation, clarification, etc I explained things again, and in other words, trying different approaches, etc. That doesn't mean it always worked, but it was my job to try, not to chastise them for not understanding something (more quickly, in whatever words I initially chose).
If I would have had any teachers who wouldn't have done that when I requested it, I would have immediately gone to their superiors and complained. — Terrapin Station
So you were talking about your initial post in this thread. What, exactly, is supposed to be absurd about the idealist stance in (1)? — Terrapin Station
The first part that wasn't clear to me in that section was "Some people, however, believe that there isn't a rock, because that would be a contradiction." What (claimed) contradiction are you referring to? — Terrapin Station
And then you say "an idealist premise which is demonstrably false, as it leads to absurdity,"--I didn't see you specify any absurdity prior to that. You just stated the basic realist view. It's not an absurdity to not believe the realist view. They could likewise simply state the idealist view and then say that the realist view is an absurdity because it's not the idealist view. — Terrapin Station
"We think them up"--okay, so you're not saying that meanings don't occur in minds. — Terrapin Station
So what am I supposed to be "proving." You already agree that meanings occur in minds. That's my view. — Terrapin Station
We just disagree whether meanings occur outside of minds. So I simply asked what you accept as evidence that they occur outside of minds, a la pointing me (even if indirectly) to any non-mental meaning properties. — Terrapin Station
And particularly phrases like "and that's that" aren't going to do anything in an argument.
You might as well say, "My view is that P. I'm right, and that's that." — Terrapin Station
My reduction to the absurd demonstrates objective meaning — S
They're only contradicting the realist view. Which of course they'll be the first to admit.
And the realist account isn't compelling to idealists--or they wouldn't be idealists in the first place. So "This is compelling to me" doesn't make an alternate view absurd. — Terrapin Station
"Absurdity" in a philosophical context would normally refer to a reductio ad absurdum, where you assume the opposing argument and then show (via consequences that follow formally) that it leads to an absurd conclusion--but that only works where the person holding the opposing argument would agree that the conclusion is absurd, or more formally, where the conclusion winds up contradicting one of the logically derived, earlier consequences of the premises, an earlier consequence which they do accept (so that then, to accept the conclusion, which would need to be valid, they'd need to accept a contradiction). An idealist about the existence of rocks isn't going to think that "rocks are only in our minds" (or anything like that) is absurd. (Just like as an antirealist on meaning, I obviously don't think "meaning is ony in our minds" is absurd.) — Terrapin Station
I accept that, except I'm not merely saying that it is compelling to me. That's a poor way to interpret my argument. Obviously it is compelling to me. It is also compelling to many others, but perhaps not all. — S
You set forth your view in a number of claims. — Terrapin Station
The claims weren't an argument (nothing followed from anything else). — Terrapin Station
You didn't state a reductio ad absurdum. — Terrapin Station
You simply claimed that believing other than you do is a "contradiction" and an absurdity. — Terrapin Station
You agree that meanings are present in minds. — Terrapin Station
That's the case when we "think them up" as you said. — Terrapin Station
It's the case when we "perceive" them (in your view), and so on. I'm saying that meanings are present in minds, too. — Terrapin Station
You're saying that meanings are also present in other things. — Terrapin Station
The burden of proof convention, if you care about that, applies to the person claiming something additional. — Terrapin Station
It's irrelevant how many people something is compelling to. Appealing to that is the argumentum ad populum fallacy. And the person who is claiming something different has no need to explain a common alternate belief unless they're interested in some sort of psychology/sociology project. Alternate views aren't made true by explaining how a belief that's wrong got popular (or false by failing to explain that). — Terrapin Station
The point is that you didn't set forth an argument, and you didn't at all estbalish a reductio ad absurdum... — Terrapin Station
That idealism or antirealism on something is unusual may very well be the case, but that has no implications for its truth or falsity. — Terrapin Station
There is a rock, but no one is there to perceive it, because we all died an hour previously. — S
Is there a rock? Yes or no?
Yes, a rock is an object,
and the existence of objects don't depend on us being around perceiving them.
It is not the case that to be is to be perceived.
To be is to be
and that's that.
Some people, however, believe that there isn't a rock
because that would be a contradiction.
But there isn't a contradiction unless you go by an idealist premise,
an idealist premise which is demonstrably false
as it leads to absurdity, as per the above scenario.
We think them up, yes. It doesn't follow that they're actually present in our minds, as though they have an actual location. Some of our language is metaphorical. The sun doesn't literally rise in the morning. What I'm saying isn't literally going over your head in a physical trajectory. — S
The issue isn't rejecting premises. The issue is that you didn't present an argument. In an argument, there need to be premises and conclusions that follow from them. No statement in your post follows from any other statement in your post. Hence it's not an argument.
Reductio ad absurdum is a type of argument. You can't have a reductio if you aren't presenting an argument. — Terrapin Station
Lol. You don't even understand what an appropriate argument is in the context. An argument of the kind that can be presented in an opening post on this forum is not of the kind which can consist in an infinite regress of premises and supporting arguments for those premises, and then supporting arguments for the premises within the supporting arguments, and so on and so forth to infinity. There's not enough space for that. It would be far too long. — S
So you don't agree that arguments require that some statements follow from other statements? — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.