For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Seeming as intent is necessary for language, your dismissiveness is irrational.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:49 pm Yes, I'm dismissive if it doesn't count as an answer to me. Your intention wouldn't matter there. You didn't answer.
So there is correct/incorrect rationality on your view then?Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:52 pmSeeming as intent is necessary for language, your dismissiveness is irrational.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:49 pm Yes, I'm dismissive if it doesn't count as an answer to me. Your intention wouldn't matter there. You didn't answer.
Red herring. Pick another word if "rationality" triggers you.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:55 pm So there is correct/incorrect rationality on your view then?
It's just a question about a comment you made. It was a word you used. If you don't want to support stuff you say--and I certainly don't ever expect you to attempt as much knowing what I know about you so far, then you can avoid it obviously, but I'll still ask in the hope that at some point you move beyond the silliness you've been engaging in.
If clouds managed to do that, I'd be fine considering it sufficient to count as language.if the clouds in the sky spelled out "Terrapin Station is an idiot" it's not language
And I wouldn't. I'd be absolutely flabbergasted by the statistical outlier that I am observing, but I wouldn't call it language.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:05 pm If clouds managed to do that, I'd be fine considering it sufficient to count as language.
Sure. Different people are different.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:07 pmAnd I wouldn't.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:05 pm If clouds managed to do that, I'd be fine considering it sufficient to count as language.
Which is why I said "intent is necessary, but not sufficient".
I didn't. Did you?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:08 pm Sure. Different people are different.
Did we learn something today?
No. I doubt that's likely here, especially interacting with you. (I did learn something about your personality the first couple times I interacted with you, but once I realized it was "stereotypical chat/message board A-hole #3" (out of maybe four or five personality types), there was nothing left to learn.)Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:08 pmI didn't. Did you?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:08 pm Sure. Different people are different.
Did we learn something today?
Well, you did learn SOMETHING.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:16 pm No. I doubt that's likely here, especially interacting with you. (I did learn something about your personality the first couple times I interacted with you, but once I realized it was "stereotypical chat/message board A-hole #3" (out of maybe four or five personality types), there was nothing left to learn.)
Yeah, not today, though.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:18 pmWell, you did learn SOMETHING.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:16 pm No. I doubt that's likely here, especially interacting with you. (I did learn something about your personality the first couple times I interacted with you, but once I realized it was "stereotypical chat/message board A-hole #3" (out of maybe four or five personality types), there was nothing left to learn.)
Consider ourself lucky! The only personality type I've ever encountered around these woods is the philosopher type.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:19 pmYeah, not today, though.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:18 pmWell, you did learn SOMETHING.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:16 pm No. I doubt that's likely here, especially interacting with you. (I did learn something about your personality the first couple times I interacted with you, but once I realized it was "stereotypical chat/message board A-hole #3" (out of maybe four or five personality types), there was nothing left to learn.)
Most people posting on message boards like this don't really qualify as philosophers in the sense that either (a) they'd ever be capable of publishing something in a peer-reviewed journal, or (b) they'd be qualified to teach philosophy anywhere.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:25 pmConsider ourself lucky! The only personality type I've ever encountered around these woods is the philosopher type.
There's nothing to learn from these folk...
Well, I tick that box.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:33 pm It's usually a high percentage of computer techs, programmers, sometimes engineers, etc. of some sort who have some interest in philosophy, so who have self-educated to some extent, but not enough.
Enough that the paper wouldn't be just thrown into the trash by the journal, and enough to at least have the equivalent knowledge/widsom/experience of someone formally qualified to teach it. Enough to not just post rambling, inane, often incoherent stuff, the errors of which could be spotted by any junior undergraduate, at least.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:38 pmWell, I tick that box.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:33 pm It's usually a high percentage of computer techs, programmers, sometimes engineers, etc. of some sort who have some interest in philosophy, so who have self-educated to some extent, but not enough.
The trouble is I can't figure out what "enough" means in Philosophy, and nobody can tell me either.
And I certainly can't find any Philosopher having ever philosophised about the nature of questions. So it seems my field has covered more ground than theirs.
I am not interested in publication. I am interested in application.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:49 pm Enough that the paper wouldn't be just thrown into the trash by the journal, and enough to at least have the equivalent knowledge/widsom/experience of someone formally qualified to teach it. Enough to not just post rambling, inane, often incoherent stuff, the errors of which could be spotted by any junior undergraduate, at least.