Do you think that sentence had any relationship to what came before it? What came before that sentence? — csalisbury
It might have but I was addressing only that sentence. Are you saying that that sentence can't stand on its own as a claim?
Part of reading and talking and thinking is understanding how sentences fit together. — csalisbury
You're saying that you understood csalisbury to be asking me about personal identity by the term "identity" when "personal identity" conventionally refers to a very different idea than "identity" does, and when I was clearly talking about identity in the more general, logical sense? — Terrapin Station
You mean like this? "You don't know what you're talking about TS. You define words to suit your arguments and then ridicule others for not knowing what you mean. Your posts are a complete muddle, and I'm one less poster you're going to have to deal with."When argument fails, resort to insult, eh TS? That should do the trick. — Wayfarer
So my point (which Willow understood immediately, having perhaps an enviable natural facility for bold-spotting ) is that you consider personal identity to be physical, while the SEP considers it to be conceptual. — csalisbury
So you cited the SEP as a way to explain hiw personal identity is defined conventionally, but you disagree with how they define the term? — csalisbury
So tho the SEP explicitly defines it in that way — csalisbury
You asked me for examples of inconsistency earlier? Here ya go — csalisbury
In what way? Not re physical/nonphsyical. AGAIN, their definition has NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. It makes no coment about any issues in that realm. — Terrapin
Wait, you are referring to definition you quoted, right? — csalisbury
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.