Then you should be able to show me this “more to words” ... — NOS4A2
... or point to any word in your lexicon of thoughts. But you won't. — NOS4A2
I think about things, like words or concepts, but that does not entail that I think in things like words and concepts. — NOS4A2
This has got to be the one of (if not the most) off topic discussions I can recall. :rofl: :joke: :lol:
an hour ago — EricH
you thought the experience of auditory inner monologue was a German thing? — flannel jesus
Are your words just scratches and sounds without meaning or significance? Can you replace them indiscriminately with any other words? Or, just strings of sounds and scratches? Does your defense of Trump amount to more than grunts? Is there more to what you say than there is to a dog barking?
But I did. I gave you three: freedom, democracy, and autocracy. But you refuse to explain how you think about them and other words without words.
Then what is it you "think in" when thinking about them without them?
And you have to supply them with meaning and significance. — NOS4A2
In linguistics it is called “arbitrariness”. — NOS4A2
You gave me three words in text. Point to me any of the words that you’re thinking in. — NOS4A2
Words don't have the power [...] — NOS4A2
If they are devoid of meaning and significance I'm not going to do for you what you have failed to do for yourself. If your words are devoid of meaning and significance there is no reason to take anything you say seriously.
You clearly do not understand what linguistic arbitrariness means. 'Water' and 'agua' have a different form and sound but mean the same thing. Theform and sound of words may be arbitrary but the meaning is not. If you look up the meaning of a word in the dictionary it does not say that the meaning is arbitrary, that it means whatever you want it to mean.
You are deeply confused. When I think of those words I am thinking in terms of those words. I am thinking about what democracy and freedom mean and how a demagogue like Trump and his followers threaten our democracy. I am thinking about how there has been a disturbing shift to autocracy in many countries and how if Trump is elected or attempts to overturn the election again the US will become an autocracy as well. And I am thinking of how Trumpsters will attempt to render the term meaningless by accusing their opponents of being autocratic.
This reminds me, a while back I asked you if you support democracy. You never answered. Is it that you think it is a meaningless sound or are you just unwilling to admit that your loyalty to Trump trumps democratic rule?
Only an autocrat would suggest no one is allowed to contest an election. — NOS4A2
Never will you mention the forces at work trying to keep people off the ballot, or that state and federal governments are trying to railroad their greatest political opponents, or the routine censorship of dissenting voices. — NOS4A2
Do you think death threats should be legal?
I think everything should be legal. — NOS4A2
One minute we’re talking about words, next we’re talking about meaning. The goal posts continue to expand. — NOS4A2
One of the greatest dangers of words comes from disregard for their importance, as if what Trump says does not matter. — Fooloso4
The fact of the matter is that you use words as a rhetorical devise in an attempt to destroy the power and meaning of words, accusing those who oppose him of whatever it is he is accused of. — Fooloso4
Only an autocrat would suggest no one is allowed to contest an election. — NOS4A2
... Trumpsters will attempt to render the term meaningless by accusing their opponents of being autocratic. — Fooloso4
I don’t support your version of democracy ... — NOS4A2
I think everything should be legal. — NOS4A2
The Trump-hater has proven himself incapable of fairness and balance. Justice evades him. It’s all about power and conformity, and moving to control how others think. Unfortunately his power wanes. His double-speak doesn’t have the effect he thinks it does — NOS4A2
I support the rule of the people. I don’t support your version of democracy, which is no doubt conflated with electioneering, vote-grubbing, and representative government. — NOS4A2
I have to say, I feel that the NY civil case against Trump Corp's valuation practises is on very shaky ground and will get tossed on appeal. As Trump keeps saying, valuation is a subjective process, and furthermore none of the banks who accepted his inflated valuations brought a complaint about them or apparently lost any money. Neither did the IRS with respect to valuations quoted for tax purposes. (And boy do I hate it when Trump is right about something.) — Wayfarer
Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice—
(1)to defraud a financial institution; or
(2)to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises ...
Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or report, or willfully overvalues any land, property or security, for the purpose of influencing in any way the action ...
(a)Imposition of penalty
If this section applies to any portion of an underpayment of tax required to be shown on a return, there shall be added to the tax an amount equal to 20 percent of the portion of the underpayment to which this section applies.
(b)Portion of underpayment to which section applies
This section shall apply to the portion of any underpayment which is attributable to 1 or more of the following:
...
(3) Any substantial valuation misstatement under chapter 1.
Your wish is granted, including that it is legal to make laws and enforce them. The fundamental problem with anarchy is that it fails to forbid government. — unenlightened
This whole exchange has been about your attempt to separate words and meaning. I called you out on this from the beginning of this exchange. From my first two posts on this:
More on this last point below.
You then go on to defend yourself by misunderstanding and misusing the concept of linguistic arbitrariness. But we should expect no less from someone who claims to think without words.
This merits its own consideration:
Why do you keep saying “our democracy”? Why not just say “democracy”? We know the answer: this trite phrase is political language, not used to discuss the concept, but used to appeal emotionally to those who read it. This is what “thinking in words” gets you, an over-estimation of the power of words and the attempts at propaganda as a result. — NOS4A2
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.