The Philosophy Discussion Forum

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2026 12:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2026 9:38 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2026 8:05 pm Are you proud of your definition?

Oxford is. Cambridge is. Lots of other sources cite the same definition.

So why not?

You might as well be proud of the sack of potatoes you bought in the grocery store.

Or of wasting time on exchanging petty aphorisms with you.

Rebuke accepted.

IC, how can you speak of a "party" and at the same time claim not to understand my term "group" "Party" is a subcategory of "group," i.e. "a group formed for political reasons." But neither of them has a vote. Under democracy, the votes are attached...

IC when we define "something" (attach a term to this "something") we have to agree about the existence of the "something". If we are talking about two different somethings, naturally our definitions clash. Right. So let's see if your definition and mine are the same, s...

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2026 8:05 pm Are you proud of your definition?

Oxford is. Cambridge is. Lots of other sources cite the same definition.

So why not?

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2026 7:16 pm I wouldn't say that.

Yeah, maybe he has one...but whatever it is, he isn't proud of it, obviously.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2026 7:04 pm My definition is bigger than yours.

He doesn't have one. I guess you'd say he's a "definition-eunuch."

I've given a "complete" argument against Determinism: it's self-refuting. The determinist has a problem, but that doesn't make determinism false at all. Being self-refuting is more than "a problem." Saying it's "a problem" means that it can be solved, potentially; bein...

NOBODY (in a democracy) gets to decide what interests are "legitimate" or not. NOBODY. Then "group" is entirely irrelevant. It's the individuals who have votes, and they are left free to vote in or out of any "group" they may choose. The result will be entirely determi...

I don't think IC is yet getting WHY I am mapping the definition problem to "cats". Oh, it's dead easy to see why you're doing it. It lets you avoid having to define your terms...and clearly, you feel very vulnerable on that point, and probably justifiably so. I don't imagine you have much...

You’ve said free will is the “best explanation,” but you haven’t actually made that argument. Yes, I did, actually. It's the automatic default, and the only way people actually live. I did make that case. So it's clearly the explanation to be preferred, until something better comes along: in other ...

Cats, because presumably you do not have the same emotional involvement. I don't have any emotional involvement. But I know how to define "cat." If I didn't, I couldn't even find one. Just like you don't know what a "Socialist" is. Is the lynx a cat? What you can't define, you c...

And who would be the one to decide which "groups" should be formed, and which "interests" would be legitimate to be considered seriously, and which would be excluded? It sounds like a rather undemocratic procedure, actually...giving groups a stake, but denying that any individua...

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2026 11:39 pm Cats, because presumably you do not have the same emotional involvement.

I don't have any emotional involvement. But I know how to define "cat." If I didn't, I couldn't even find one.

Just like you don't know what a "Socialist" is.

That doesn't really solve the majority problem. It just means that more people are deprived of their REAL choice, and forced to choose between two people or parties they DIDN'T really want in the first place...hardly a solution. THAT problem is not solvable. Right. So democracy is never going to be...

There's very much a point. You've been critical of my definition, which certainly implies you have a different one -- presumably one you believe is better in some way. I'd just like to know what it is, because your belief is obviously that your definition is NOT the same as mine. No, let's stick to...