Re concepts as solutions to problems, would you characterize the concept of "food" for example as "the solution to the problem of finding sustenance/recognizing substances that won't be dangerous/deadly to ingest"?

So that you'd be saying that it's often an attempt to find a solution to a problem where we're not at all thinking about it in those terms?

Terrapin for instance has, in the past, vocalized a problem he has that people seem frustrated by his way of holding a conversation in a way he personally finds baffling — csalisbury

Not sure what that's referring to.

the absence of responsibility for the effects of one's words, — csalisbury

In cases where utterances are not causal. There can be cases where utterances are causal. For example, a bomb that's triggered by a voice command--"Alexa, set off the bomb."

Why is Glenn Magee reading "love of wisdom" as "endless pursuit of something that can never be attained" anyway? Is his love life that bad? Or does he think the only Socrates is a philosopher, and only when he's tongue-in-cheek saying that he doesn't know anything?

Yes but the WAY it does so seems random. Sure it incorporates your beliefs and attitudes etc but whenever a decision is close and you can’t tell exactly way you picked A rather than B that’s just a random choice is it not? — khaled

Some choices are epistemically random, sure. And many if not most people (including me) intentionally pursue some choices that seem random.

I'd say the word "good" was forgotten. Hegel is not a good philosopher. :joke:

Upon thinking about this, my immediate response is to imagine a white sphere in a black void. However, this is clearly incorrect because there are many things present: (1) color, black and white, (2) geometry, which makes the sphere a sphere, and (3) space, in which the sphere is placed. You could argue there are other elements too, such as the fact that the sphere has the property of being white. — InTheChair

Your "many things" aren't things "in and of themselves." Those are properties of something. Properties are not separable from the thing with those properties.

so you’re saying free will IS just a manifestation of random choice. So if you have a 20% chance of killing someone you’re really annoyed with and an 80% chance of not doing so but the universal die just happened to roll on the 20 and you kill said someone, that was your free choice? — khaled

What dynamically biases the possibilities, to a point where eventually it's 100% in favor of a particular possibility (at the moment when you make your choice) is you/your will.

Pah! Then why even ask me that in the first place? I don't care whether you actually take on board my suggestions, but you asked me what you're supposed to do about it, so obviously I told you what I think. — S

It's rhetorical, because (in my opinion) obviously you should realize that other people have no obligation to cater to you when they don't have a problem with something but you do. Why shouldn't you just as well cater to them?

Well, obviously, I would suggest a different approach, for starters. — S

Because you have a problem with it? That's your problem.

I'm not about to change something I'm fine with just because other people have a problem with it.

And I of course see that as a problem in itself, in addition to all of your other problems. — S

Okay . . . what am I supposed to do about it?

Yes, and look where that's taken you: a position that is counterintuitive. A position that myself and others find unacceptable. — S

Which I of course do not see as a problem.

I'm saying that that's a sensible starting place, — S

I see the (statistical) norms more as an ancillary ending place.

("statistical" because I don't buy the notion of prescriptive norms period)

Wait, your saying that ethics is also determined by norms?

And you're mistaken about that, as well. — S

How, in your view, can someone be mistaken about whether something is unethical?

Which is an extreme position which I, along with the vast majority, would reject. But whether you talk about it as an utterance or as behaviour (it's both) it only shows poor judgement on your part to fail to see why it's unethical. — S

I can't be wrong about whether something is unethical. (Of course, I can't be right, either. Right and wrong don't apply here.)

Re the other part, in other words, it didn't seem to me like you were asking me to explain my view with the goal of better understanding it for the sake of understanding it.

Well, it started with claims like this, where he makes a trivial point where he doesn't seem to consider the importance of context, — S

I don't agree that there's any context within which concepts are correct.

You haven't as yet offered much of substance to back up your claims. — Baden

Which claim did you want more "substance" for?

Do you see nothing unethical about suddenly changing the subject when things seemed to be coming together, and then adamantly refusing to return to what we were talking about? — S

I don't see anything unethical about any utterances. That doesn't mean that I like all utterances that people make in all contexts, or that I think all no utterances are a bad idea, but "unethical" is too strong in my opinion.

when drawn into a line of questioning about that view, — S

You were asking me to explain my view, to aid your understanding of it, and I didn't explain it to you?

To which came this type of thing:

There is no "correct" when it comes to this stuff.
...
I demand that you let me use language however I want to. I don't identify as a conformist to what others want. — Baden

The "demand" was in the context of folks demanding that I use particular pronouns to refer to them.

You're interested in debating. I'm interested in having conversations. Re an issue like this, this isn't something I'm going to think that I'm wrong about. I didn't just arrive at my view, and I'm not unfamiliar with the alternate views being expressed. So debating with me about it, as if I'm going to change my mind, because you're going to present something to me that I hadn't thought about before, is probably going to be futile. I like having conversations, though. I like explaining my views and why they are what they are, in contradistinction to other views, and I enjoy people give their views in their own words, plus I think it's worthwhile for both parties to once again examine how their views work in context of contrary views.

Why on earth would it not be a situation where red herrings can be introduced? It's exactly that kind of situation.

I've lost hope that I'll get any real answers from you about why you do this, or why you seem to think that it's acceptable, so I'll tell you what I think. I think that you can't bear to concede, so when backed into a corner, you change the subject instead. — S

Also re conceding. How is that something that is done in a conversation where people are trying to understand each other?

Conceding is something you do in a competition.

Ought statements, for the most part, are about resentment. The ought statement says: "That shouldn't have happened." It's a rejection of part of the universe in favor of other parts, or more bizarrely, in favor of a world that doesn't and couldn't exist. Looked at this way, morality, for the most part, is delusion. — frank

Couldn't an ought statement be about something people usually do? "One ought not run up to strangers and punch them" for example. There are exceptions, but by and large, that world exists.

You often try to turn it back on me, as though I'm the one in the wrong. Try to think about why I did that. You backed me into a corner. You gave me no choice. Why should I tolerate red herrings? If you have any sense of ethics, you should be able to see why that's not a fair approach to discussion. I traced the red herring back to you. The trouble began with you, not me. — S

It's supposed to be a conversation where we're trying to understand each other, no?

Why would you even look at that as something where "red herrings" could be introduced?

It just depends on how the conversation is going, if I think it's going. I was writing some longer posts, but this one fell apart when you ignored points I was making, ignored questions I was asking, and then after that, insisted that I answer something in a way that you preferred, or you wouldn't play.

It's easier if people speak the same language. The more you redefine existing words, the more difficult it becomes for others to understand you (and also, the more difficult it becomes for you to understand others.) — Magnus Anderson

So would you say it's easy to understand someone redefining "correct" that way or not?

A discussion between two people should be quid pro quo. What I've learnt from engaging you in discussion is that you don't care about that, even when it becomes a problem. — S

In my opinion discussions don't work when they're not easygoing/friendly, when people are trying to prove the other wrong rather than trying to understand them, and when one person gets too controlling. Hence why I make the moves I make when any of that stuff happens.

Yes, I respond with questions all the time. My goal is to get folks to think and learn.

If you want to be understood then you should use words the way other people do. — Magnus Anderson

If you say something like "I use 'correct' so that it refers to 'a puppy'" that's easy to understand, isn't it?

Right. So in this case, "correct/incorrect" is just descriptive, where it's the same as "conventional/unconventional." It has no prescriptive weight on your view?

You mean you want to ignore the main thrust of the lengthy debate we were having in order to pursue your red herring.

You do this all the time. Just as we're getting somewhere - Bam! - a red herring, and then there's no going back for you. — S

Maybe don't start posts with stuff that you consider superfluous? Keep them short and dive right into what you want to discuss at the start. Again, you don't have to do this. It's just a suggestion if you think that I'm addressing superfluous stuff (via my tendency to stop and reply at the first thing I have an issue with)

The meaning of a symbol is the set of all things that can be represented by that symbol. — Magnus Anderson

Not on my view, but that's another can of worms to get into.

So yes, in this particular context, correct/incorrect is the same as conventional/unconventional. — Magnus Anderson

The idea wasn't that you were necessarily saying this generally. In this case, the norm/convention is correct because?

It's not funny, it's a stain on your reputation, and ignominious way of ending a debate. — S

And I'm still not going to read/respond to a bunch of different points/issues at a time when one is in the mood to argue with me.

lol

Also, here's more evidence that you're a bad listener. — S

I'm not a listener at all when it comes to long(er) posts. I've explained this many times. You can write posts as long as you want, of course. I'm not doing more than what I consider to be one point or issue at a time, however (especially if someone is in the mood to argue with me). It's up to you whether you want to write stuff that I'm not going to read.

You don't consider that (what that?) to be . . . what? — Magnus Anderson

Definitions/descriptions are different than meanings on my view. ("that meaning" was a shorthand way of saying "that to be meaning")

I am not sure I know what it means to say that a convention is correct or incorrect. — Magnus Anderson

You just said that what it "means" to say that word usage is correct/incorrect is that the word usage is the same as the convention/not the same as the convention.

So on your view, what it is to be correct (in this context, at least) is to be (the same as) the convention. Is that not right?

You began a digression — S

First, it's not a digression. It's what I'm talking about.

No need for scare quotes. — Magnus Anderson

There's a need because I don't consider that meaning.

Okay, so then the convention is correct, no, and differing from the convention is incorrect?

I'd be interested if you were to address my last post to you.

pfft

I merely explained what it means to say that someone is using words incorrectly. — Magnus Anderson

What it "means" is that they're not using the word conventionally/a la common usage, right?