Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:10 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2019 9:40 pm Blah, blah, blah.
You know what that means I take it?

It means your actions beg a question.

Why do you feel the need to correct a sentence that you understood?

PLONK!

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2019 2:59 pm I do not have that ability, but those things are set by consensus of lexicographers.

Lexicography is descriptive, not prescriptive. It's a fine line between consensus and decree.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2019 2:59 pm When misinterpretation seems to be the case, look for understanding.
Let me explain: I am not suggesting to argue over language, but rather to find a common understanding, regardless of language.

Does this forum strike you as a ground for "understanding"?

There can be no consensus without a shared vision and a common goal. An agreed-upon real world outcome. A success criterion of some sort.
Actual co-operative effort from both parties is an "agreement". Otherwise it's just lip service.

"understanding" itself is not a common goal, because it means different things to different people.
Some people want to understand how to disagree.
Some people want to understand how to agree.

They are different games with different rules.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2019 2:59 pm The challenge is to understand the language before proceeding to argue about substance.

Communication works exactly backwards in practice. If you actually want to agree - you figure out how to navigate around language's problems.

Error detection and correction.

So much exasperation. I’m done.