I have never said that I don't know what "X" means; that is your own distorted version. Stop wasting my time. — Janus
Ah. So you jumped into a discussion that you should not have...
See ya. — creativesoul
There are certain things which exist in their entirety prior to our becoming aware of them, and prior to language itself. Truth(as correspondence to the way things were and/or are), meaning, and rudimentary thought and belief are such things. Because these things exist in their entirety prior to language, any and all arguments and/or statements which conclude and/or assume otherwise are wrong, by virtue of not corresponding to the way things are and were.
— creativesoul
This honestly appears to me to be gibberish. I have tried a few times to read some sense into it and failed. Perhaps our ways of thinking, our presuppositions, are so remote from each other as to preclude the possibility of any meaningful discussion between us. I suspect this is so also based on past experiences with you. Happy thinkin' dude.... — Janus
Too much unnecessary language use only results in adding nothing more than unnecessary confusion to the discussion.
— creativesoul
Well you haven't actually argued against anything I've said... — Janus
Honest folk do not usually edit posts in such a way as to completely change the context from which the reader draws some important aspects of understanding. For whatever reason, that has been done here. The part above beginning with "this honestly" and ending with "happy thinkin' dude" was put into place after I had resigned from the thread. — creativesoul
This honestly appears to me to be gibberish. I have tried a few times to read some sense into it and failed. Perhaps our ways of thinking, our presuppositions, are so remote from each other as to preclude the possibility of any meaningful discussion between us. I suspect this is so also based on past experiences with you. Happy thinkin' dude.... — Janus
Well, then what's the point of presenting gibberish? Are you just a troll, after all? — Janus
There are simple techniques for building bridges of mutual understanding, even when two people hold opposing views. I mean, it's no secret that some folk are capable of understanding positions that are contrary to their own.
It does not follow from the fact that a reader does not understand an author's argument that the argument is meaningless(gibberish). — creativesoul
I'm sorry for the long delay replying. Interestingly (to me anyway), the reason I took such a long break is exactly the topic we're discussing here. — Pseudonym
I think that there is really no other sensible question than "what should I do next?" — Pseudonym
because it deals in things described by their effects. So, from a therapeutic point of view, I only see it as harmful to persist in the notion that some metaphysical positions can be demonstrated to be incontrovertibly 'right' in the face of the overwhelming evidence that it cannot. — Pseudonym
That might be rational argument, but that rarely works and it's more likely to be rhetoric, or even outright deception if necessary. — Pseudonym
I hope this will explain, though I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. — Pseudonym
Having laid that out, if you don't mind putting up with my framework for a moment, it seems like you're saying that some science is actually quite far along the 'difficult to get agreement on' part of scale 1, and plenty of the sort of metaphysics I might dismiss as pointless is actually quite far along the 'really important to get agreement on' end of scale 2. Is that a fair translation of your view into my framework? — Pseudonym
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.