Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 2:45 pm I think it's more along the lines of: this dog is this dog and no other dog

What does this even mean? Can you use this sentence in the context of an actual conversation?

Nobody says that.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:48 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 2:45 pm I think it's more along the lines of: this dog is this dog and no other dog

What does this even mean? Can you use this sentence in the context of an actual conversation?

Nobody says that.

it means exactly what it means

hey, skep, this dog is this dog and no other dog means exactly what it means

I just did

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:55 am it means exactly what it means

hey, skep, this dog is this dog and no other dog means exactly what it means

I just did

It's obvious to everybody that you are saying it.

It's not obvious to anybody WHY you are saying it.

It says nothing that needs saying, yet you felt the need to say it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:02 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:55 am it means exactly what it means

hey, skep, this dog is this dog and no other dog means exactly what it means

I just did

It's obvious to everybody that you are saying it.

It's not obvious to anybody WHY you are saying it.

It says nothing that needs saying, yet you felt the need to say it.

yep

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:01 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:02 pm It says nothing that needs saying, yet you felt the need to say it.

yep

Do you want to elaborate what the need was, or can I respond with "Cucumber battery staple Australia, January 14th. 4th from the left" ?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:44 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 4:37 pm Then you started with the axiom," Before you begin, it is best to reject all axioms."

Exactly! You mis-interpret the rejection of axioms as an axiom.

That IS an axiom. Even grammatically, that's obvious. And since you never defended it or legitimized it, you're taking it gratuitously.

OR, say what justifies it...and that will be your axiom.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:39 pm That IS an axiom. Even grammatically, that's obvious.

It's not at all "grammatically obvious". Unless you axiomatically assume that grammar is semantics. Do you?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:39 pm And since you never defended it or legitimized it, you're taking it gratuitously.

OR, say what justifies it...and that will be your axiom.

It doesn't require defending, legitimacy or justification - it's the default position from which axioms are considered.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:07 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:01 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:02 pm It says nothing that needs saying, yet you felt the need to say it.

yep

Do you want to elaborate what the need was, or can I respond with "Cucumber battery staple Australia, January 14th. 4th from the left" ?

nope

yep

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:09 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:07 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:01 pm

yep

Do you want to elaborate what the need was, or can I respond with "Cucumber battery staple Australia, January 14th. 4th from the left" ?

nope

yep

No.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:11 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:09 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:07 pm
Do you want to elaborate what the need was, or can I respond with "Cucumber battery staple Australia, January 14th. 4th from the left" ?

nope

yep

No.

now you got it:

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:12 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:11 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:09 pm

nope

yep

No.

now you got it:

I don't actually. Only you got it.

That's why I said....

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:02 pm It's obvious to everybody that you are saying it.

It's not obvious to anybody WHY you are saying it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:12 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:12 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:11 pm
No.

now you got it:

I don't. Only you got it.

That's why I asked...

nope, you don't got it:

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:14 pm nope, you don't got it:

I KNOW!

THAT IS WHY I SAID....

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:02 pm It's obvious to everybody that you are saying it.

It's not obvious to anybody WHY you are saying it.

That is why I asked you if you want to elaborate on the need.

Until you elaborate on the need, your sentence is meaningless.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:15 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:14 pm nope, you don't got it:

I KNOW!

THAT IS WHY I SAID....

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:02 pm It's obvious to everybody that you are saying it.

It's not obvious to anybody WHY you are saying it.

That is why I asked you if you want to elaborate on the need.

Until you elaborate on the need, your sentence is meaningless.

okay

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:52 pm It doesn't require defending, legitimacy or justification - it's the default position from which axioms are considered.

Well, that's what you imagine. And that's fine. You have a right to be wrong.