Philosophy Now Forum

I looked up the root, and apparently that's what it means. So true blasphemy could be anything from deception to slander to teaching someone violence to immoral debate tactics. Thoughts?

If the user of a word intends a particular meaning and the hearers of the word infer the same meaning then, as far as that particular situation is concerned, that is the meaning of the word.

I suppose sometimes that is the case, but it is irrelevant here.

Jaded Sage wrote:I suppose sometimes that is the case, but it is irrelevant here.

The only time it isn't the case is when the word is used in a legal context where the word will have a precise definition. Otherwise, a word just means whatever the user of it intends it to mean. If others interpret the word differently then a misunderstanding will occur, which is often what happens.

My mistake. I confused user with original user. If you mean original user, I misunderstood you. I suppose the same rule applies to legal cases too.

Check out this cool.. ..etymology?

Jaded Sage wrote:I looked up the root, and apparently that's what it means. So true blasphemy could be anything from deception to slander to teaching someone violence to immoral debate tactics. Thoughts?

The thought which your brain is incapable of understanding is that meanings precede words and their definitions which can only ever approximate the intentions of the person who is attempting to express themselves.
The true meanings do not however lie in wait for the moment an enlightened person such as yourself (presumably with the help of God) uncovers them from the Ideal Realm of words placed their by Plato.

Blasphemy is meaningless. As it has religious connotations its meaning relates to saying things that God would rather you did not say. Since there is no God, then the word vanishes into thin air and is no longer used by reasonable people.

I'm going to help you on this issue one time.

We are working under the assumption that God exists, whether or not it is true.

Jaded Sage wrote:I'm going to help you on this issue one time.

We are working under the assumption that God exists, whether or not it is true.

Bat shit crazy.

Jaded Sage wrote: We are working under the assumption that God exists, whether or not it is true.

This is not the sort of assumption which is likely to lead to a meaningful philosophical discourse but let's play the silly game anyway. What's it got to do with blasphemy? What would be the likelihood that an omnipotent and omniscient being would give a flying fuck about what you or I might have so say about him?

Sure it is. We just skip the endless debate about existence. We have to focus on blasphemy as calling good bad and bad good to avoid devolving into a debate about superstition.

Jaded Sage wrote:Sure it is. We just skip the endless debate about existence. We have to focus on blasphemy as calling good bad and bad good to avoid devolving into a debate about superstition.

Nope.

Jaded Sage wrote: We have to focus on blasphemy as calling good bad and bad good to avoid devolving into a debate about superstition.

Where is all this leading? What is it, exactly, that you are trying to establish?

I have no idea. I'm just seeing where it goes for now.

Jaded Sage wrote: We have to focus on blasphemy as calling good bad and bad good

Good or bad according to whom?