Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 4:43 pmOK. WHERE is the meaning of the term "unicorn"?
And WHY are you asking that question? Are you denying that the term "unicorn" has any meaning? Isn't it obvious that it does? Why should anyone care where that meaning is located?
If the term "unicorn" doesn't refer to anything meaningful then it has no meaning.
There you go again, repeating your mantra.
There are many words that have no referent that are nonetheless meaningful. The word "cat", for example, has no referent. It does not refer to any particular real life cat occupying a portion of physical space. "That cat" has a referent but that's not the same symbol as the word "cat". A referent is merely a portion of the universe a symbol refers to. There is no portion of the universe the word "cat" refers to. If you think that there is, please show us that portion of reality. If you point to any particular cat, you are wrong. If you point to the set of all cats that exist, you're wrong once again. The word "cat" simply has no referent. Yet, the word "cat" is perfectly meaningful. How can that be? It can be because to say that a word is a meaningful one is NOT to say that it has a referent but that it has a concept attached to it, i.e. that there are rules in place that establish what kind of things that symbol can represent. The symbol "xclskfdks" is meaningless because I have not declared what kind of things can be represented by it.
You can say that the word "cat" has real life instances or examples, i.e. that there are things that exist that can be represented by the word "cat". That is true. But instances aren't referents. Moreover, there is no need for a symbol to have real life instances in order to be a meaningful symbol.
What? That's just viciously circular and completely vacuous reasoning!
Hardly.
You really are doing nothing but questioning everything endlessly with no purpose other than to demolish all thought.
What captures the meaning of the sentence "A horse with a horn on its forehead"?
Are you going to give me another sentence? What sentence captures the meaning of that sentence?
Define "define "define "define """"
You are chasing your own tail
Nah, you're just trying really hard to come off as smart while promoting complete demolition of all thought. You're employed by the CIA to promote fake philosophy --
foolosophy -- in an effort to keep the intelligence of the average person at the bare minimum. That's how you present yourself. You've been sent to this forum to spend all of your working hours doing nothing but countering everything everyone else is saying. Your task is to instill doubt. Question everything, endlessly. Never ever seek any sort of resolution. Make sure that no productive discussions happen. Waste other people's time as much as you can.
Dumbass. You are talking ABOUT something. By talking ABOUT something you are refering TO that something.
Yes, to talk about something is to say that that something -- a portion of reality -- is such and such.
But we've been over this, haven't we?
You are not paying attention.
In the case of "Unicorns exist", the referred portion of reality is "The present state of the universe". That's what we're talking about. And that clearly exists. You won't, and you can't, deny that.
When you are talking ABOUT a unicorn you are refering TO a unicorn.
But we're not talking about some random unicorn, dummy. In fact, we are not even talking about unicorns ( plural. ) We're talking about the present state of the universe. And what's we're saying about it is that there are unicorns in it.
Are you following, dummy?
The subject is "The present state of the universe."
The predicate is "It contains at least one unicorn."
The subject is supposed to refer to a portion of reality. Not the predicate. Get over it, buddy. YOU LOST BIG TIME.
So you are trying to tell me that the sentence "unicorns exist" and the sentence "the state of the universe at this present moment" refer to exactly the same thing ?!?!?
Nah. You have a lot to learn and I don't have infinite time.
If your words have no referent then you are literally talking about NOTHING. NOWHERE.
Wrong, buddy. Try to prove that one if you dare. I am sure you can't. You are not here to prove. You are here to question.
When you are using the term "unicorn" you are talking ABOUT.... NOTHING. NOWHERE.
You have a loooooooooooooot to learn. But in order to be able to learn, you need give up on your excessively positive perception of your own self. Until you do that, until you tone down your arrogance, you won't get anywhere. You will be stuck repeating one and the same thing over and over again. Like a broken record. Like a nobody that you are.
Yeah. iIt's my job/career.
And this forum is your workplace, I suppose.
You are talking about a 30 meter tall Skepdick, bro! Do you want me to conclude you are fucking imbecille; or do you want me to be charitable and infer that you are just talking about your imagination?
You can't really infer that I am imbecile because I don't really believe it. But given how hard it is for you to understand extremely simple things, I can very easily infer that you're a gigantic imbecile, one of a kind.
You fucking imbecille. Everybody knows that I can't be 30 meteres tall.
So if you are SAYING that I am 30 meters tall then you can't be talking about me.
I can, dummy. To talk about X merely means to say Y about X. In this case, X is your height. I am talking about Skepdick's height. And Y is 30 meters. I am saying that your height is 30 meters. The referred portion of reality is Skepdick's height, something that obviously exists. The description of that portion of reality is 30 meters. That's an incorrect description, of course.
Neither the fact that you're not 30 meters tall, nor the fact that there is noone else in the universe who is 30 meters tall, means that I am talking about an imaginary Skepdick's height. In other words, it does not follow that X is imaginary Skepdick's height. GIVE UP ON IT, DUMMY. I said NOTHING about the imaginary Skepdick. I wasn't talking about the imaginary Skepdick.
What all of this clearly shows, to everyone, everyone who is not as seriously retarded as you are, is that you have absolutely no clue how to properly understand what other people are saying. You're an extremely poor listener. I know you have a high opinion of yourself, and that you think that your biggest weakness is your biggest strength, but that means nothing, dummy. They call such things "delusions". Lots of people have those.