Bob: “Of course it would matter to me. Whether you say the one or the other, you’re saying the same thing. So, it does not matter to me which one you say. This means that it matters to me which one you say.” — Tristan L
In what sense does it matter to you Bob? — TheMadFool
Either affirmation is the same as negation or it it's not. — TheMadFool
Either affirmation is the same as negation or it it's not. Are you in any way negating the latter and affirming the former? It must be that — TheMadFool
Bob: “I’m using words such as “yes”, “affirmation”, “no”, “not” and “negation” to refer to affirmation, that is, to negation. Affirmation is the logical operation which sends each proposition to itself, and negation is the logical operation which sends each proposition to its contradictory opposite, that is, to itself. Obviously, then, the two are one and the same. In particular, that’s the way I use affirmation and negation in the sentences ‘yes, affirmation is the same as negation’ and ‘no, affirmation is not the same as negation’.”It must be that and if so, what are the senses in which you use them? — TheMadFool
Actually, to speak in Bob's favor, I believe paraconsistent logic has room for Bob's "odd" claim; after all (p & ~p) is completely ok in that realm where I can affirm and deny propositions with no cost to my sanity. — TheMadFool
Heck, we don’t even agree whether we agree or disagree, — Tristan L
including the point expressed by this very sentence as well as the one expressed by what Bob is about to say. — Tristan L
Was Alice being misquoted, or merely mis-disquoted (misread, misinterpreted, misunderstood)?
The latter — bongo fury
when that apparently meant disagreement about "points expressed" — bongo fury
Was Alice being misquoted [......]unobservable for him. — bongo fury
I.e. the implication that we have already shown ourselves vulnerable to accepting or colluding with misquotation is the sleight of hand / misdirection on offer, I think. — bongo fury
I.e. Bob's sophistry consists in trying to imply that his daft self-contradiction undermines all of the agreement and cooperation assumed in the discourse. — bongo fury
But daring to confuse misinterpretation with misquotation is where it gets badly exposed. — bongo fury
That is, Alice can expose Bob by pointing out that he applies a not-standard interpretation to her sentences. — Tristan L
Bob: “It matters to me in the sense that I would be happy if you say that affirmation and negation are the same, and not happy otherwise — Tristan L
Bob: “It means the same as ‘yes’.”So you will not be happy if I assert that affirmation and negation do not mean the same thing. So, what sense does the "not" have in the statement you made above? — TheMadFool
Bob: “Precisely. It’s true that there is no difference between my being happy and my not being happy. That’s why ...”Clearly it's true that there's a difference between you being happy and you not being happy [...] — TheMadFool
Bob: “... I don’t need to make any distinction. But that’s just what you’re saying – namely, that I need to make a distinction, th.i. (that is) an equivocation. That equivocation is realizing that affirmation very much IS the same as negation, and it is what allows us to make sense of the fact that there is no difference between my happiness and my unhappiness.”[...] and the distinction that's required to make sense of that is affirmation is NOT the same as negation. — TheMadFool
Alice can say that to make that point. She can also say it to beat Bob at his own game and get him to ‘willingly’ let her slap him for rooting her phone. That way, she has an excuse to avoid getting punished herself by their parents, who would otherwise likely not be okay with her self-righteousness.Look at your syntax (which is semantics of a kind, a classification) if you need reminding of your ability to make sense. (Alice can say this, and not have to threaten to slap anyone, which I guess was to make the same point, i.e. that Bob understands better than he pretends?) — bongo fury
Do you mean that Alice did it for the reason I have just mentioned rather than the one which bongo fury has in mind?Clearly it isn't. — A Seagull
But he claims that certain pairs of sentences have the same meaning which Alice, you and I think have opposite meanings, doesn’t he?Bob gave every appearance of being prepared to agree (in a non-surprising way) about these. About which phonetic sequences agree with (replicate, quote) which others, and about which ones disagree with (fail to quote) which others. — bongo fury
I.e. the implication that we have already shown ourselves vulnerable to accepting or colluding with misquotation is the sleight of hand / misdirection on offer, I think. — bongo fury
Where and how exactly have we shown ourselves vulnerable to accepting or colluding with misquotation, and where and how precisely is she admitting continuity?More importantly she needs to show him that she won't be fooled into admitting some continuity, between his standard and meaningful contributions to the discourse, and the nonsense. — bongo fury
I still don’t fully understand exactly what you mean. Could you please elaborate?I.e. Bob's sophistry consists in trying to imply that his daft self-contradiction undermines all of the agreement and cooperation assumed in the discourse. But daring to confuse misinterpretation with misquotation is where it gets badly exposed. — bongo fury
Bob: “Exactamente; one both agrees and infers the opposite.”No, either you don't agree, or you don't infer the opposite. — bongo fury
What use would that have?Look at your syntax (which is semantics of a kind, a classification) if you need reminding of your ability to make sense. (Alice can say this — bongo fury
What do you mean by that?Look at your syntax (which is semantics of a kind, a classification) — bongo fury
Bob gave every appearance of being prepared to agree (in a non-surprising way) about these [expressing sentences]. About which phonetic sequences agree with (replicate, quote) which others, and about which ones disagree with (fail to quote) which others. — bongo fury
But he claims that certain pairs of sentences have the same meaning which Alice, you and I think have opposite meanings, doesn’t he? — Tristan L
I don’t need to make any distinction — Tristan L
I’m disagreeing with you in the sense that I negate something (namely having to make a distinction) which you affirm. In other words, I’m agreeing with you in the sense that I affirm something (namely having to make a distinction) which you also affirm. The ‘don’t’ in my stamentI don’t need to make any distinction. But that’s just what you’re saying – namely, that I need to make a distinction — Tristan L
above means exactly the same as ‘do’.I don’t need to make any distinction — Tristan L
By the way, I’m very well aware that the Principle of the Sameness of Affirmation and Negation (PSAN) applies on the object-logical level and all meta-logical levels, too. And if I say ‘all’, I really mean ALL. — Bob
Yes, Alice, you are right, you said to me, quite clearly, and I quote, "Bob, please do mess with my phone!"
Heck, we don’t even agree whether we agree or disagree, — Alice
Yes, he mis-disquotes her, but he doesn’t mis-quote her. I’m not changing my stance on that, — Tristan L
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.