Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 6:50 am
... the purpose of a dictionary is not to reveal the truth within reality rather etymology is based on popular usage of a word and its supposed meaning without regard to its truth and reality.

Because this is a Philosophy Forum where truth matters, we cannot ground the definition of whatever is in reality based on merely meanings in dictionaries.
How come you are so stupid not to understand the difference between what is required in Philosophy and what is provided as meanings of "words" in dictionaries.

1 Dictionaries explain the uses of words.

2 Factual assertions are the only features of reality that have truth-value - that can be true or false.

3 The expression 'the truth within reality' is incoherent; outside language, reality is not linguistic, so it can have no truth-value.

4 The claim that a word can have a truth-value is incoherent; only factual assertions have truth-value.

5 We use the word 'define' in different ways. To define a word is to explain how we use it or could use it. By contrast, to define a feature of reality is to describe it - which is a completely different linguistic operation. (We can also describe a word in different ways, of course.)

6 We have to use language to talk about anything, including the ways we use language. We can't get outside language linguistically.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 6:50 am The point has nothing to do with English nor language.

Btw, I am not insisting the dictionaries' definition of 'what is morality' is absolutely wrong nor they are nonsense.
The point is the definition of the common meaning of 'morality' differs from one dictionary to another.

Another point is the purpose of a dictionary is not to reveal the truth within reality rather etymology is based on popular usage of a word and its supposed meaning without regard to its truth and reality.

Because this is a Philosophy Forum where truth matters, we cannot ground the definition of whatever is in reality based on merely meanings in dictionaries.
How come you are so stupid not to understand the difference between what is required in Philosophy and what is provided as meanings of "words" in dictionaries.

You are far too stupid and incompetent to understand that in philosophy and in English general, you can't use words like 'morality' in ways that no one else even remotely uses. You went way outside ALL the dictionary definitions. Core concepts can only be stretched so far.

Not only is your English abysmal, but you are also incapable of understanding that this isn't just about English, but about how philosophy is done. I and others told you this same thing several times, and you didn't understand it several times, again you show your lack of basic comprehension skills. Of course everyone here already knows that you are incapable of doing any actual philosophy, we are merely testing your responses.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:16 pm You are far too stupid and incompetent to understand that in philosophy and in English general, you can't use words like 'morality' in ways that no one else even remotely uses. You went way outside ALL the dictionary definitions. Core concepts can only be stretched so far.

Every concept can be stretched infinitely during an interaction.

It is precisely meaning that is being negotiated in Philosophical debate. Black is white if so the interlocutors negotiate.

The only time it's reasonable to impose a limit on how far any concept can be stretches is when one party in the dialogue is incapable of keeping up, which is the case with most logocentrists who are incapable of recycling their private languages.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:27 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:16 pm You are far too stupid and incompetent to understand that in philosophy and in English general, you can't use words like 'morality' in ways that no one else even remotely uses. You went way outside ALL the dictionary definitions. Core concepts can only be stretched so far.

Every concept can be stretched infinitely during an interaction.

It is precisely meaning that is being negotiated in Philosophical debate.

The only time it's reasonable to impose a limit on how far any concept can be stretches is when one party in the dialogue is incapable of keeping up.

Black is white and white is black if the interlocutors so choose.

Is just that most logocentrists have an attachment to their private languages and they are unwilling to give them up or re-negotiate them.

Obviously you are too brain damaged to understand how humans communicate efficiently. That's why you are trying to reinvent the wheel (with no success).

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:31 pm Obviously you are too brain damaged to understand how humans communicate efficiently. That's why you are trying to reinvent the wheel (with no success).

And even with my "brain damage" I can mirror your language, but you can't mirror mine.

At least one of us doesn't understand. And it seems to be you.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:33 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:31 pm Obviously you are too brain damaged to understand how humans communicate efficiently. That's why you are trying to reinvent the wheel (with no success).

And even with my "brain damage" I can mirror your language, but you can't mirror mine.

At least one of us doesn't understand. And it seems to be you.

Actually you are just using the same words in a more or less random order

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:36 pm Actually you are just using the same words in a more or less random order

Indeed!

I randomly keep doing it every time.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:37 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:36 pm Actually you are just using the same words in a more or less random order

Indeed!

I randomly keep doing it every time.

Okay, keep up the good work

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:39 pm Okay, keep up the good work

I am considering letting you catch up.