I could never get into that style. I think language is more organic than that, that words don't have sharp, independent meanings, that meaning is cumulative and contextual. Basically I don't think we can do math with words. That's one of my few complaints about Hobbes. He's a little too attached to Euclid. — ghost
Have you presented your ideas anywhere else on the internet? On other phil. forums? If so, how was the response different or similar? All other forums I've looked at are eye-sores. This one is slick. — ghost
even math isn’t absolutely objective; — TheGreatArcanum
But I do admit, working with words and definitions is a real pain in the ass. — TheGreatArcanum
essentially, if objects are at the same time both concepts and objects, and this must be so, I think, because we can only conceive of concepts and all objects and all parts of objects can be conceived of, I can just avoid the distinction between them and deal with concepts alone. — TheGreatArcanum
I have many many coherent paragraphs — TheGreatArcanum
maybe later. — TheGreatArcanum
My question is whether your slobbiness is ultimately an artistic decision, a costume of humility or transcendence of fashion.. Like a king in his bathrobe. I'd be surprised if you didn't walk through the world feeling tuned in to something rare. — ghost
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.