If the nominalist is coherent/consistent, then s/he cannot even talk about this sentence for it would have changed and would be another one as a result of change(similar to Heraclitus' river). — creativesoul
You can talk about P at T1, and I can talk about P at T1, and P at T1 is identical to P at T1--so what we're talking about can be identical. You're confusing that with our thinking, our utterances, etc. at T2, T3, etc. As always, what we're pointing to isn't the same thing as our pointing. — Terrapin Station
even though that meaning had already changed before you finished thinking about it — TheGreatArcanum
Meaning isn't something different than thinking, so what you're asking here makes no sense. You're talking about meaning as if it's something independent of thinking. — Terrapin Station
no, I’m not saying that meaning and thinking are mutually exclusive, only that thinking, that is, a particular set of words with a particular set of sounds, is not equal to the meaning — TheGreatArcanum
wasn't saying "mutually exclusive" either. Meaning is a mental event. It's a type of thought. — Terrapin Station
meaning is a subset of thought, in which case, the existence of the thought precedes the existence of the meaning of the thought in time, — TheGreatArcanum
so the meaning of the word “horse” which means, ‘that’ animal existing in the world, — TheGreatArcanum
...what we're talking about can be identical. — Terrapin Station
Meaning is the act (or event) of making mental associations. — Terrapin Station
Incoherence anyone? — creativesoul
Ah. You're learning... almost. — creativesoul
nothing is identical through time. — Terrapin Station
...what we're talking about can be identical.
— Terrapin Station
Incoherence anyone? — creativesoul
perhaps essentialism, no? — Wallows
Incoherence anyone?
— creativesoul
We can be both referring to A (or P or whatever) at time T1. — Terrapin Station
Also, more generally, the absurd notion that there is no shared meaning, if accepted, would render all discourse futile, because interlocutors could never be doing anything other than talking past one another. A lamentably useless position to hold! — Janus
What flavour of Nominalism do you find attractive? I am assuming that you don’t regard it as a doctrine to live by merely a useful perspective you have inclinations toward. — I like sushi
Yes, the idea of a real T1 is meaningless in view of the fact that the present is not a dimensionless point, but a moment containing both past and future (retention and protention) whose degree of "dilation" cannot be precisely specified since it is context-dependent. The point is that no purported T1 can be altogether without change. Terrapin Station mistakenly reifies the dimensionless present, which goes towards explaining the incoherence of his position. — Janus
Ever heard of time dilation? — creativesoul
if accepted, would render all discourse futile, because interlocutors could never be doing anything other than talking past one another. — Janus
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.