Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:If someone is acting Aspie-like, do you feel that one shouldn't say as much out of some PC politeness or something?

And enough with the snob crap re Christina Aguilera and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

This is not snobbery. CA is not an opera star;

That would be an Aspie approach. A characteristic of Asperger's is that Aspies have trouble parsing non-"literal" language.

AS is not much of an actor, certainly does not do theatre.

Arnold is one of my favorite actors, actually.

Make up your mind either its snobbery or it Aspies!

Fact is no one in their right mind would ever call Arnie a thespian except with irony, most would call him a pretty poor actor - though I have to say after 35 years trying he has covered some good roles that are not challenging, but effective.

When he walks the boards and provides a decent performance on stage, I'd be the first to consider the word Thespian.
As for Christine - whatever he name is - I'd never heard her sing an operatic aria so I don't know if she deserves 'diva'. But I'd never describe her singing ability in the same vein as Leontine Price.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYbtRWGtZ9U

There is a high note in this song at around 3:30 that some singers cannot reach. For me having the title "diva" can predict high for this ability.

So bite me!
You are the pendant here. A classic case of projection.

Terrapin Station wrote:by virtue of extramental facts about the moon[/i].

No facts are extramental.

Hobbes, you said:

"What is right and wrong then?
Give me an example."

So I wrote:

So, for example, "The lunar surface is 19 percent magnesium" is correct, because that matches a state of affairs--namely that the lunar surface is 19 percent magenesium.

Or, "HobbesChoice feels that the word 'math' is ugly" is correct, because that matches a state of affairs--namely that you feel the word "math" is ugly.

But "The word math is ugly" isn't correct (or incorrect), because it doesn't match any state of affairs.

================>> Those were the examples.

[quote="Hobbes' Choice"]Make up your mind either its snobbery or it Aspies![/quote}Everything has to be the same thing?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:by virtue of extramental facts about the moon[/i].

No facts are extramental.

So you're an idealist?

Terrapin Station wrote:Hobbes, you said:

"What is right and wrong then?
Give me an example."

So I wrote:

So, for example, "The lunar surface is 19 percent magnesium" is correct, because that matches a state of affairs--namely that the lunar surface is 19 percent magenesium.

Or, "HobbesChoice feels that the word 'math' is ugly" is correct, because that matches a state of affairs--namely that you feel the word "math" is ugly.

But "The word math is ugly" isn't correct (or incorrect), because it doesn't match any state of affairs.

================>> Those were the examples.

Great - they were bad examples that failed to make your point.

For everyday usage:

19% lunar Mg is right
Math is ugly is right

If you are a "aspie" pedantic p****:

19%Mg is not 'right' without qualification
"math is ugly" is not 'right without qualification.

Are we done here? Or are you going to insist that I append IMO to every thing I say from now on?

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:by virtue of extramental facts about the moon[/i].

No facts are extramental.

So you're an idealist?

We are all idealists if we want to understand how the world works.
Facts, truth, opinions, though qualitatively different are all mental acts which pose our understanding of the world with our perception of it. Its all about how we relate to the world.
You may be aware of another thread about truth. I say much the same there.
We it not for conscious beings facts and truth would be meaningless, let alone "extramental"
That is not to say that there are no things that are extramental. It is simply that we can only know the world as a set of mental constructs. But a fact is not mind independent.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:For everyday usage:

For one, isn't the idea to discuss philosophy here, or is this place supposed to be just like a coffee break in a real estate agency?

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:For everyday usage:

For one, isn't the idea to discuss philosophy here, or is this place supposed to be just like a coffee break in a real estate agency?

I seem to think we were having a light discussion about the usage of English. You turned it into a pedantic aspie discussion, pretending that what I said was not 'right'.
You used the word right.

Is murder right or wrong?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:For everyday usage:

For one, isn't the idea to discuss philosophy here, or is this place supposed to be just like a coffee break in a real estate agency?

I seem to think we were having a light discussion about the usage of English. You turned it into a pedantic aspie discussion, pretending that what I said was not 'right'.
You used the word right.

Is murder right or wrong?

"Right" and "wrong" in a moral context is just a way of an individual yaying or booing whatever we're talking about. (I had mentioned this earlier, by the way.)

"It's wrong to murder" isn't correct or incorrect, true or false. It's a report about the way someone feels about murder.

"Joe feels it's wrong to murder" however, is true or false.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:For one, isn't the idea to discuss philosophy here, or is this place supposed to be just like a coffee break in a real estate agency?

I seem to think we were having a light discussion about the usage of English. You turned it into a pedantic aspie discussion, pretending that what I said was not 'right'.
You used the word right.

Is murder right or wrong?

"Right" and "wrong" in a moral context is just a way of an individual yaying or booing whatever we're talking about. (I had mentioned this earlier, by the way.)
.

And perhaps that's why I objected to your booing my opinion that math is ugly. And so we come full circle. Hopefully.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:And perhaps that's why I objected to your booing my opinion that math is ugly. And so we come full circle. Hopefully.

I actually didn't give an opinion on that.

What I was commenting on was the idea that something like that can be (normatively) correct/incorrect, so that we socially pressure people to conform with some norm, because they're "wrong" not to do so, where that has a connotation that they're making a mistake or that they've got some fact wrong or anything like that.

Let's rename it Mathra, shall we? It's a giant, numerically adept moth. (God, I hope you watch old Japanese movies and get the reference.)

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:And perhaps that's why I objected to your booing my opinion that math is ugly. And so we come full circle. Hopefully.

I actually didn't give an opinion on that.

What I was commenting on was the idea that something like that can be (normatively) correct/incorrect, so that we socially pressure people to conform with some norm, because they're "wrong" not to do so, where that has a connotation that they're making a mistake or that they've got some fact wrong or anything like that.

So you are a yank, you say 'math'. We get it. Actually Hobbes is American too, but he can hear how ugly 'math' is.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:And perhaps that's why I objected to your booing my opinion that math is ugly. And so we come full circle. Hopefully.

I actually didn't give an opinion on that.

What I was commenting on was the idea that something like that can be (normatively) correct/incorrect, so that we socially pressure people to conform with some norm, because they're "wrong" not to do so, where that has a connotation that they're making a mistake or that they've got some fact wrong or anything like that.

You did not say that.