Howzat?

:brow:

Could Melville have gotten Ahab wrong?

Is a tree?

Is appropriateness to us as Ahab is to Melville?

What's the matter with the ones we have?

What happens when there is no elemental constitutive difference between the name and the thing being named?

Products of our own imagination.

Gender?

Is gender to us as Ahab is to Melville?

Naming consists of elemental constituents. Names. Things being named. Things to draw a correlation between the two.

An entire novel of that size consists of hundreds of pages, and it's not possible that the entire novel, which would include every single detail, existed in the form of ideas, thoughts, or beliefs, before he had written it all down. You're the one who used the words "in its entirety". — S

The novel existed in it's entirety at the final rest of the pen/quill. An accurate report of the novel reports on the novel's evolutionary progression. A timeline of sorts. At different times, the novel had a different elemental constitution. It existed in it's entirety at each and every point in time since it's inception.

Some novels are never written.

'Assignment of thinghood' refers to the human activity of 'naming' which is the first level,of any measurement. A recent example might be the concept of 'global warming' which prior to a few years ago did not 'exist' in the sense of being a recognizable 'significant event' in human consciousness. — fresco

Not all naming is the assignment of thinghood. Many names were give,n taken, and extensively used long before any notion of 'assignment of thinghood'. Long before those terms were used first together as a name(the irony), we used names.

There is no difference in the final format. This is due to Ahab being Melville's brain child. Ahab can't say anything different from what Melville puts in his mouth.This is so because Melville was a person in reality, and Ahab, a person existing only in imagination.

An imagined person can't autonomously speak or write. He or she is under the complete influence of the person who penned him or her. — god must be atheist

Indeed.

...a subject doesn’t recognize a particular terminology for his conscious mental machinations, isn’t sufficient reason to suppose he isn’t doing the same thing he’d be doing if he did. — Mww

If one is using common language to take account of one's own mental ongoings, then one needs to recognize a particular terminology. If one cannot recognize that particular terminology, one cannot possibly be thinking about it.

...to be defined is to be conceived, which is always the primary ground for some immediate and subsequent mediate cognizant ability... — Mww

As to first cognitions....just because a subject doesn’t recognize a particular terminology for his conscious mental machinations, isn’t sufficient reason to suppose he isn’t doing the same thing he’d be doing if he did. — Mww

If definitions are required for cognizant ability... He couldn't possibly be doing the same thing.
— creativesoul

I didn’t say definitions were required, you did: — Mww

To be defined is always the primary ground for some subsequent cognizant ability.

That's your words. Primary ground is required for what subsequently follows. That's - purportedly - a cognizant ability in this case.

What you said presupposes that definition is required for some subsequent cognizant ability.

Such a shallow viewpoint. Some men? Sure. Not the admirable ones.

You realize how fallacious this is? You realize what it has in common with many racist thoughts? Identity politics? Etc
— creativesoul

Some, compared to the vast majority over history, yes. — Artemis

Waffling.

The way men have tried to "protect" women has historically included keeping them in the house, telling them whom they can be friends with, what jobs they can do, not allowing them to vote, not allowing them property, and beating them when they get rebellious. If that's not disadvantaged, I dunno what definition you're working with. — Artemis

Some. Not all.

Are you now claiming the majority of all men, as in... throughout human history acted like that?

Ok.

One is more than ought be. Trust me. Plenty of otherwise peaceful men have dealt with some of the same overbearing aggressive physically threatening insecure men, like those you mentioned. All such treatment of women was and is wrong.

Now...

Other men protect the woman's right to the pursuit of her own happiness.

The way some men have acted towards women is unacceptable. Others are perfectly acceptable. There are different standards for what counts as "protecting women". Some of those you'd probably agree with. Sometimes, those standards are held by men who do not appreciate being placed into the same bag of rotten apples(your target). Such men would be your friend, one would think, an ally of sorts, unless your notion of "feminism" equals man hater.

What I'm doing here with the odd claim is attempting to drive an existential wedge between reports of things and what's being reported upon.
— creativesoul

What does this mean? Do you mean you're arguing against idealism? Are you just saying that things and the reports thereof are different? What is the significance of saying that something exists "in its entirety" etc.? Why does it matter? — jamalrob

I don't typically argue against 'isms'...

A thing's constitution can change over time. "In it's entirety" is helpful to understand existential dependency.

The novel existed in it's entirety prior to the first report of it. Melville reported upon something that existed in it's entirety while writing the novel as well.
— creativesoul

I'm sure Melville talked about Moby Dick (the novel) before it was finished.

If that's a misunderstanding, then you haven't been clear enough. — jamalrob

Sure. He could've shared that he was struggling with the ending.

Is there a difference between Moby Dick, Ahab, Pequod, and Melville's thought/belief? All three of the former are the latter, but not all Melville's thought/belief are Moby Dick, Ahab, or the Pequod.

You're an idiot.

What's the difference between Ahab and Melville's report?

What I'm doing here with the odd claim is attempting to drive an existential wedge between reports of things and what's being reported upon.

Sloppy writing on my part... I meant Melville's...

Imaginary people do not have thought/belief.

The way men have tried to "protect" women has historically included keeping them in the house, telling them whom they can be friends with, what jobs they can do, not allowing them to vote, not allowing them property, and beating them when they get rebellious. If that's not disadvantaged, I dunno what definition you're working with. — Artemis

Such a shallow viewpoint. Some men? Sure. Not the admirable ones.

You realize how fallacious this is? You realize what it has in common with many racist thoughts? Identity politics? Etc.

...concepts are all we've got ! — fresco

Throwing rocks at fresco...

The thesis here is that 'existence' is a word used by humans regarding what is 'a useful concept'....nothing more ! — fresco

That's not a thesis. That's an absolute statement. Ironic.

Yes. The novel reports the thought, belief, and ideas of Ahab...

...to be defined is to be conceived, which is always the primary ground for some immediate and subsequent mediate cognizant ability... — Mww

And being defined/conceived...

What does that take? — creativesoul

...self-consciousness and a rational methodology. — Mww

So prior to our first cognition... we need definitions, self-awareness, and a rational methodology.

Does that sound right to you?

Seems quite evidently wrong to me. — creativesoul

As to first cognitions....just because a subject doesn’t recognize a particular terminology for his conscious mental machinations, isn’t sufficient reason to suppose he isn’t doing the same thing he’d be doing if he did. — Mww

If definitions are required for cognizant ability... He couldn't possibly be doing the same thing.

The problem with 'common sense' is that it assumes language to be representational of 'extant permanent objects'... — fresco

My common sense doesn't.

Sigh...

Are you denying that things existed prior to us?

Simple question.

You are using 'existence' as an absolute. — fresco

I am using common sense.

As to first cognitions....just because a subject doesn’t recognize a particular terminology for his conscious mental machinations, isn’t sufficient reason to suppose he isn’t doing the same thing he’d be doing if he did. — Mww

This conflicts what you said earlier.

Some things exist prior to us, and thus prior to our reports.

Are you denying that?

Anyone who seriously thinks/believes that nothing exists prior to human awareness of it has lost their fucking mind.

I think the problem with you lot is that you in your minds - but not in my posts - you are confusing moral values with things such as moral judgements, or moral evaluations. But, like I say, that's what you're doing, not what I'm doing. — Bartricks

You think so at least.

Equivocation. Equivocating the phrase "bag of turnips". In the same argument it references two different things. Your wife, and a bag of vegetables called "turnips".

Not all bags of turnips go to the market simply because your wife does. If your wife is equivalent to a bag of turnips, then it is a specific bag of turnips. That specific bag of turnips is necessarily at the market each and every time your wife goes to the market.


If A is B is what you want.

If all A's are B is what you need.

1. if bag of turnips is wife, then if wife go market, necessarily bag of turnips go market
2. If wife go market, bag of turnips not necessarily go market — Bartricks

If the bag or turnips and your wife are one and the same, then if your wife went to market necessarily the bag of turnips did. — Bartricks

:roll:

They are the same. Change "bag of turnips" for "moral values". Then change "wife" to "my values". — Bartricks

Only if all your values are moral values. Are all bags of turnips your wife?

Things exist prior to us. That much is undeniable. Our notion of time is existentially dependent upon us. Things exist prior to our notion of 'time'.

Either existence is not existentially dependent upon our notion of 'time' or we've gotten something horribly wrong in our notion of 'time'.

The word, or what the word denotes?

Yes, it produces sound. Sound is just pressure waves caused by vibrations in a medium, which any falling item (not in a vacuum) would produce. — Terrapin Station

Yup.

...to 'exist' is to 'matter to us. — fresco

And yet things exist prior to us.

:brow:

Not the same argument as the ones being objected to. Some ad hocs are better in that some are always true.

1. if bag of turnips is wife, then if wife go market, necessarily bag of turnips go market
2. If wife go market, bag of turnips not necessarily go market
3. Therefore, bag of turnips not wife. — Bartricks

Only one wife, yeah?

:brow:

I understand the terms just fine. If wife go to market, wife is necessarily at the market.

Relative and absolute?

Can that dichotomy take proper account of that which is existentially dependent upon and consists in/of both, and is thus... neither?

To exist is to have an affect/effect. It is to interact. All things thought, believed, spoken, and/or otherwise uttered are relative, in a common-sense-sort-of-way.

Existence is always marked by interaction.