The whole rather being a Socrates versus pig thing. — NKBJ

What does this mean?

Give an example when the word “pen” has no meaning.

Repeating yourself doesn’t help me without giving examples.

Are you referring to dead languages?

I suppose I meant to say “symbols”, not “symbolism”. Speech words, written words, linguistic thoughts and thought images, actual images, literal symbols, signs, etc. What these things refer to are their meanings. Physical objects, a rock for example, has no meaning on its own.

Meaning is what symbolism refers to.

I was just going to say that I finally got your meaning before you posted that. I’m not good with mixing poetic language with analytic philosophy. I like to keep them separate. What are your thoughts on my view of meaning?

I must be thick because I still don’t know what you are talking about. You said that the saw can cut things and that the hammer can drive nails. Then you said that the pen can do all of these things. I’m sure that’s not what you meant.

The pen can do all of the above. — creativesoul

Huh? What do you mean? Serious question.

In my view, the word “pen” has meaning. It refers to a writing utensil with ink. A picture of a pen can also have meaning. It refers to that particular writing utensil in the picture. The picture may also have private meaning in that it may call up all kinds of associative thoughts. A physical pen has no meaning on its own. Have you ever asked, “What does this pen mean?”

never doing anything "wrong" — ZhouBoTong

I do wrong shit all the time. It’s unavoidable in this life. However, I know WHEN I’m doing wrong.

So you are unwilling to sacrifice your spiritual enlightenment (never doing anything "wrong") for the lives of billions? Doesn't seem so moral anymore? — ZhouBoTong

Just being honest and nothing to do with spiritual enlightenment. I wouldn’t blame others for saving humanity in this way, although it would still be an evil act. I just don’t have the stomach to harm a baby.

Uh, oh. I was sure I was right when I said I would boil three babies if the aliens promised not to destroy earth to build their galactic bypass (not sure how boiling 3 babies helped them, but it saved earth!) — ZhouBoTong

Just because you choose the lesser of two evils doesn’t make boiling babies morally right. It is still evil. It is still an objective moral truth. Common sense says you should boil three babies to save humanity from the aliens, as sometimes it may be expedient to choose a lesser evil. That said, I would rather die and take others with me than boil even one baby. Never mind that it is the alien race who are committing an evil act.

I guess you’re right. I was trying to make the point that it isn’t a truly public venue, but then I remembered the example of Representative Stephen King.

If someone does use racial slurs at a sporting event they shouldn’t be surprised if they’re thrown out and banned. — I like sushi

It should be noted that these are private businesses.

But what about an animatronic model or 3D art piece that makes one or two repetitive movements?

Yeah, you’re probably right.

@Terrapin Station What does this say about extra-mental facts?

Most of us are, and yet most people don’t understand that.

I will take a page from @S’s playbook. Anyone who says “that boiling babies is wrong” just means “Ew, I don’t like boiling babies, boo” is a moron.

but I have solid evidence of me not being very smart when it really mattered. — Bitter Crank

That just means you’re human. You’re smart in some of the key areas that I value. However, I will add the caveat that the kind of smarts I value don’t necessarily translate into economic success. Some smart people are very rich, and some smart people are homeless.

And yet conservatives hold him up as one of the greatest presidents of all time.

Naw. You’re a pretty smart bloke.

And Reagan was no baby boomer. Generation X is just as much to blame as the boomers for the continuation of Reaganomics.

I think Bitter Crank has an IQ of at least 145. He’s like an encyclopedia.

Does "meaning" refer to something like this, something that each individual adds to the act, but only has importance in relation to the overall cooperative act of communicating? Or, does each individual act contain meaning within itself, regardless of the act's relation to the overall, shared act of communicating? — Metaphysician Undercover

The overall “conversation” has meaning, and so do the individual contributions of the participants. “Meaning” is what words, thoughts, representations, etc. refer to. My two cents.

The ‘right’ values are the ones we chose. Feed them into the computer with all the statistics and you’ll get the ‘right’ outcome. — Brett

I meant moral values in the form of “if, then” statements. Intelligent people can disagree on the “right” values. A computer would need values in order to make complex decisions.

Morocco? Very cool. :cool:

The sculpture is the middle ground because you have to view it from various angles, taking more time than a photograph or painting. That’s what I think.

When we reach the point of making unpalatable decisions, will we throw them at a computer to analyse and then direct us to the most logical, and consequently the right decision? — Brett

Logic alone cannot enable a computer to make a societal decision. It needs values programmed into it as well. So, what are the right values?

going back to the neanderthal, — Bitter Crank

Ah, the Neanderthal. The original white trash.

Besides, being white trash isn’t all that great. — Noah Te Stroete

Unless you’re really into NASCAR for instance.

I wish I could be white. — Brett

You’re not living up to the charter I drafted for you. Remember? Besides, being white trash isn’t all that great.

I understand the economic implications of ending consumerism, but if we don’t I’m afraid there won’t be a livable planet to host an economy. Furthermore, I sort of have a fetish for new technologies. I’ll admit I’m a hypocrite.

I don't believe the answer is more technology, but rather a change of mindset away from advocating and relying upon the kinds of technologies which require vast amounts of cheap energy for their use and development. If we don't stop, then nature will demonstrate its mastery over us by stopping us. I think the very idea of us going to other planets, mining asteroids and so on, is a laughable scientistic masturbatory fantasy. — Janus

I agree that there is no technofix beyond clean, renewable energy. Consumerism probably has to go as well. Anyone ready for that? We don’t build consumer products to last. We replace them far too often. Population control is of paramount importance, too. Family planning is essential in the countries with a low median age. Immigration is necessary for the aging countries, which tend to have more wealth so family planning usually already exists there, and the newcomers will settle into the family planning methods of their host country, eventually producing fewer offspring over a couple of generations. Fixing old shit instead of building new is important, too.

A chair is only a chair because we have decided it is a chair. — TogetherTurtle

That’s not a definition. :razz:

I think I agree with that.

We are responsible for our behavior. That's it. Ever. Always. — T Clark

I think I agree. However, what about the white nationalist? As long as he treats people with respect he is not responsible for his hateful beliefs? Just an example.

Yes, we must reality test the truth aptness of our beliefs as the way we are. — Wallows

Interesting. Could you expand on this?

How civilised you are. — Brett

I resent that, speaking as a white trash redneck. :blush:

Ok. It would be cool if you never gave a hint as to your age, ethnicity, gender, and other characteristics. Then you can keep pointing out other people’s Idols of the Mind. You could be like the Philosophy Forum’s anonymous conscience...

Yep. I’ve made up my mind. That’s the role I will give you. Now, into the world with you, lad! :grin: