just think its pretty distasteful to do what you've just done in an attempt to find some ad hominem-esque reason for dismissing an interlocutor. — AmadeusD
Ah, but you do wish to comment on me personally after all. — TonesInDeepFreeze
I haven't tried to dismiss you. But you haven't interlocutorated much anyway. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Yessir, and I the same. I outline what I (still) recognise as a distasteful approach, but I very much appreciate your clarification here. Genuinely. Thank you.I exercise my prerogative to respond only to what I am motivated to respond to — TonesInDeepFreeze
asking someone for information and then receiving it but without at least posting that the information was received and understood (or not understood, thus requiring elaboration) is also a kind of dismissiveness. — TonesInDeepFreeze
It wasn't aimed at me - the posts in question were responses to other people, so I revert to the above appreciation. — AmadeusD
clearly indicated at the time. — TonesInDeepFreeze
ou let out a fart of snark that would naturally be understood to be directed at me. — TonesInDeepFreeze
And especially so since the poster you had been previously faulting was me — TonesInDeepFreeze
naturallycounter-attacking and defending. — TonesInDeepFreeze
[not as you later claimed - TIDF] clearly indicated at the time. — TonesInDeepFreeze
I maintain it was. It was not in response to you directly, or indirectly. — AmadeusD
I already made two attempts to say "Cool man, we weren't having such a go at each other as it seemed" — AmadeusD
I can only laugh.Oh, is that what you meant to convey? You have a curious way of communicating, I'll give you that. — TonesInDeepFreeze
I outline what I (still) recognise as a distasteful approach, but I very much appreciate your clarification here. Genuinely. Thank you. — AmadeusD
so I revert to the above appreciation. — AmadeusD
I don't think the latter is dismissive at all. — AmadeusD
You are clearly making some extremely sensitive inferences that don't make sense. — AmadeusD
I outline what I (still) recognise as a distasteful approach, but I very much appreciate your clarification here. Genuinely. Thank you. — AmadeusD — AmadeusD
naturallycounter-attacking and defending. — TonesInDeepFreeze — AmadeusD
ou let out a fart of snark that would naturally be understood to be directed at me. — TonesInDeepFreeze — AmadeusD
But as it stood, it was you making a snarky put down of something or other. So, a form of dismissiveness. It is disingenious to toss out snark but pretend it's not. — TonesInDeepFreeze
It is disingenious to toss out snark but pretend it's not. — TonesInDeepFreeze
You haven't addressed the specifics of my argument about it. — TonesInDeepFreeze
But it's dishonest to pretend that one hasn't been sarcastic and to pretend that not even is it reasonable that another took you as sarcastic — TonesInDeepFreeze
You ought not put strikethrough across my words within a quote like that.
I said "naturally" and I did not strike it. — TonesInDeepFreeze
I maintain it was. It was not in response to you directly, or indirectly. — AmadeusD
(your point is these posts were an exchange between yourself and RussellA - unfortunately for me, it was also a couple of other posters, not just you two. My point was distancing my reply from the personal aspect you're tied to).was in response to about eight posts — AmadeusD
But as it stood, it was you making a snarky put down of something or other. So, a form of dismissiveness. It is disingenious to toss out snark but pretend it's not. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Nope. Still nope. It is not. This is simply you outlining an ambiguity and then claiming the least-charitable version for your own ends. Not sure why you would, and it's not for me to explain. — AmadeusD
You haven't addressed the specifics of my argument about it. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Yes I have. Multiple times. — AmadeusD
But it's dishonest to pretend that one hasn't been sarcastic and to pretend that not even is it reasonable that another took you as sarcastic — TonesInDeepFreeze
Luckily, those two things are true, and I am not being dishonest. — AmadeusD
You ought not put strikethrough across my words within a quote like that.
I said "naturally" and I did not strike it. — TonesInDeepFreeze]
That was the point my guy. You did not 'naturally' react. — AmadeusD
perhaps had your ego hurt — AmadeusD
I tried to squash the 'beef'. Four times now, actually. — AmadeusD
I did not say that, thank you very much.
was in response to about eight posts — AmadeusD
(your point is these posts were an exchange between yourself and RussellA - unfortunately for me, it was also a couple of other posters, not just you two. My point was distancing my reply from the personal aspect you're tied to). — AmadeusD
[bold added]in response to about eight posts, none of which were at or about me best I can tell - it was discussion between yourself and RussellA. — AmadeusD
It was somewhat imprecise though. It was a comment on the previous set of comments, which were not to, about or for me - not a response to them. So I'll cop to that misunderstanding entirely. — AmadeusD
I reject your position on the basis its an emotional reaction — AmadeusD
and assumed the worst in all three turns (the initial "Why did it take..." — AmadeusD
No. Quine doesn't say that, and he doesn't say anyone else has said that. — bongo fury
But the whole outside sentence here attributes falsity no longer to itself but merely to something other than itself, thereby engendering no paradox.
I interpret Quine as saying that in the expression "this sentence is false" is false, the outside sentence is "this sentence is false". — RussellA
In " "this sentence is false" is false", "this sentence is false" is the inside sentence — bongo fury
And I may stipulate that in the context of my post, "This sentence" refers to "This sentence has five words"...On what basis is it claimes "This sentence has five words" not meaningful? — TonesInDeepFreeze
Self-referential case
In the self-referential case, "this sentence, the sentence "this sentence contains five words", contains five words".
But we know that this sentence is the sentence "this sentence contains five words".
Therefore, "this sentence, the sentence "the sentence "this sentence contains five words" contains five words", contains five words".
Ad infinitum. Infinite recursion. Therefore meaningless. — RussellA
Let "The Pentastring" refer to "This sentence has five words". — TonesInDeepFreeze
The Pentastring has five words, since the Pentastring is "This sentence has five words" and "This sentence has five words" has five words. — TonesInDeepFreeze
"London" is a city. (false - "London" is a word, not a city) — TonesInDeepFreeze
"The Pentastring has five words" asserts that "This sentence has five words" has five words. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Suppose we define 'the Pentastring' as the "This string has five words". — TonesInDeepFreeze
"This sentence has five words" asserts that "This sentence has five words" has five words. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Does he mean "this sentence is false", or does he mean ""this sentence is false" is false" — RussellA
What would it mean for the sentence ""this sentence is false" is false" to be no longer attributing falsity to itself? — RussellA
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.