Materialism is logically imposible

[Immanuel Can]

Here are some definitions etc. of "describe," courtesy of "thefreedictionary.com" and "dictionary.com:"

* "To give an account of in speech or writing"
* "To convey an idea or impression of; characterize"
* "To describe is to convey in words the appearance, nature, attributes, etc., of something."
* "describe, narrate, recite, recount, relate, report
These verbs mean to tell the facts, details, or particulars of something in speech or in writing: described the accident; narrated their travel experiences; an explorer reciting her adventures; a mercenary recounting his exploits; related the day's events; reported what she had seen."

Okay, so first question, yes or no, do you agree that those are common definitions of "describe"?

Do you regard them as adequate definitions if we take your assumption of "describe" as including things that are not true?

For example, if we were to take the first one and frame it as, "To give a false account..." or the second one, "To convey an erroneous idea...", then would you still want to say the person doing that was "describing"? Certainly YOU can choose to do that, but do you really think that's what the writer was intending?

You see, the writer of those definitions is surely assuming you're going to take for granted that the "describer" is trying to say something truthful. False "descriptions" are thus not what he has in view. We can't ask him to elaborate his definition to cover what he's left out, but I think he's pretty reasonable to think he should not have to...not for reasonable readers, anyway.

[Immanuel Can]

But since you're here, would you mind answering my earlier question: "How much does an idea weigh?"

[Terrapin Station]

When I ask a simple yes or no question--"yes or no, do you agree that those are common definitions of 'describe'?" I expect that someone will have the ability and courtesy to answer yes or no. Otherwise, why would I bother trying to have a conversation with them if we can't conquer something that simple?

[Terrapin Station]

But since you're here, would you mind answering my earlier question: "How much does an idea weigh?"

I'll gladly directly answer questions you ask if you'll do the same. That's the way I expect conversations to work.

[Immanuel Can]

When I ask a simple yes or no question--"yes or no, do you agree that those are common definitions of 'describe'?" I expect that someone will have the ability and courtesy to answer yes or no. Otherwise, why would I bother trying to have a conversation with them if we can't conquer something that simple?

When you ask an unjust or ill-framed question, you cannot expect your responder to buy into it.

That's simple fairness.

[Immanuel Can]

But since you're here, would you mind answering my earlier question: "How much does an idea weigh?"

I'll gladly directly answer questions you ask if you'll do the same. That's the way I expect conversations to work.

Go ahead then.

[Terrapin Station]

When I ask a simple yes or no question--"yes or no, do you agree that those are common definitions of 'describe'?" I expect that someone will have the ability and courtesy to answer yes or no. Otherwise, why would I bother trying to have a conversation with them if we can't conquer something that simple?

When you ask an unjust or ill-framed question, you cannot expect your responder to buy into it.

That's simple fairness.

Why would asking if you agree, yes or no, that those are common definitions of "describe" be "ill-framed" or "unjust"? It's a simple question. Either you agree that those are common definitions of "describe" or you do not--or at least you EXPLAIN why you cannot answer yes or no. "I can not say whether those are common definitions of 'describe' or not because _______" and you fill in the blank.

Again, if something that simple causes that much problem, then I'm not going to attempt anything more complex, nuanced, etc.

It's a bit like when you do a polygraph with someone. If they can't answer yes or no whether their name is Joe Smith, forget anything else. I'm establishing whether we can even tackle something extremely simple.

[Hobbes' Choice]

But since you're here, would you mind answering my earlier question: "How much does an idea weigh?"

Weigh is a relative term.
Do you mean how much mass does it have?

[Immanuel Can]

When I ask a simple yes or no question--"yes or no, do you agree that those are common definitions of 'describe'?" I expect that someone will have the ability and courtesy to answer yes or no. Otherwise, why would I bother trying to have a conversation with them if we can't conquer something that simple?

When you ask an unjust or ill-framed question, you cannot expect your responder to buy into it.

That's simple fairness.

Why would asking if you agree, yes or no, that those are common definitions of "describe" be "ill-framed" or "unjust"? It's a simple question. Either you agree that those are common definitions of "describe" or you do not--or at least you EXPLAIN why you cannot answer yes or no. "I can not say whether those are common definitions of 'describe' or not because _______" and you fill in the blank.

No, no...mine was the earlier question. You get to ask yours after you answer mine. That's fairness too.

[Terrapin Station]

---IGNORE---

[Immanuel Can]

---IGNORE---

Yes, I thought so.

[Terrapin Station]

I'm just not going to bother when someone interacts (or rather fails to) in the way you do. I'm not interested in providing fodder for your ego-gratification. I'm interested in having philosophical discussions.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm just not going to bother when someone interacts (or rather fails to) in the way you do. I'm not interested in providing fodder for your ego-gratification. I'm interested in having philosophical discussions.

But apparently not in answering a question.

[bahman]

Why a system of belief should move toward truth in order to be acceptable?

What do you prefer? A comfortable delusion? A wild speculation?

If there isn't any truth in a belief, there is absolutely no good sense in believing it in the first place. That's certainly a basic assumption of philosophy -- and of common sense, as well

Look at all system of believes in philosophy. All -ism cannot be correct. How we can find what is correct?

There shouldn't be any absolute truth at all at the end.

Why not? Have you got some kind of prejudice against truth? That would be an odd thing to have. How would you acquire that?

One cannot decide at the beginning of an investigation that "no truth will be found," for then there is no longer any reason to investigate. Rather, one must expect that something truthful will emerge from the search...and ALL truth is exclusive. Once you know of a certainty that 2+2=4, there is no reason to investigate other possible answers. The sum is done. Move on. And once you know the earth is spherical, then only a fool contused to work on the thesis that it's flat. That's unscientific. Accept the truth and move to the next step.

In fact, have you noticed that the modern axiom of Relativism "there is no truth" is itself a contradiction? For it cannot be true statement. If it is, then the axiom is false, because there is at least one absolute truth -- the axiom itself. But if it's false, then it's also false. It's false either way.

Epistemic relativism is thus simply self-defeating. Nobody even needs to bother to invent other ways to refute it, since it does such a superb job of that itself.

Again, look at all system of believes all -ism. They could not all be right or wrong. So where we are going?

[Immanuel Can]

Look at all system of believes in philosophy. All -ism cannot be correct.

True. They cannot ALL be correct, especially because some contradict the others. But what reason have you to think that NONE of them can therefore possibly be?

How we can find what is correct?

Philosophy presumes that logic is the way. We discuss and debate, and the most rational viewpoint is the winner. How else would we know anything, after all?

Again, look at all system of believes all -ism. They could not all be right or wrong. So where we are going?

Again, you're simply jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. The existence of many views -- even many believable views --does not tell us a thing about whether or not a right answer exists to a question.

There is actually an infinite number of answers to the question "What is 2+2?" Some are more plausible than others. But one is actually right. End of story.