Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2024 10:33 pm what you think of, when you think of that word, is quite substantially different from what I am thinking.

Words aren't just noises that point at little images in the human mind, meanings aren't the little pictures in your mind's eye.

But you say words always mean the same, no matter who says them. So you shouldn't need any more information than the word itself. Again. Checkmate. You clearly don't believe your own argument. There are different words spelled "bow". You are debasing yourself. :lol: :lol: :lol: Shaaaaamin...

Ah. So words don't always "mean the same thing." :lol: QED. The context is to know which of the words that are spelled "bow" you refer to. But you say words always mean the same, no matter who says them. So you shouldn't need any more information than the word itself. Again. Che...

So when I say "bow," which word do I mean? If I knew a context... Ah. So words don't always "mean the same thing." :lol: QED. The context is to know which of the words that are spelled "bow" you refer to. Whichever one you mean, it is still the same word for all the pe...

You can say whatever you want. But the truth of what I've said above is manifest. The words mean the same thing whoever says them. So when I say "bow," which word do I mean? If I knew a context I could reply with the same word meaning the same thing. The proposition "Eric raised his ...

That's an obvious truism. You can't possibly doubt it. The unbeliever doesn't, by definition, believe any God exists. So he can't say that something he doesn't believe exists could ever also "be good." That would make no sense at all. They're just words, of course we can say them. You can...

These are your words, written by you.... ...when an unbeliever uses the phrase "God is good," it has no meaning the Theist finds adequate That's an obvious truism. You can't possibly doubt it. The unbeliever doesn't, by definition, believe any God exists. So he can't say that something he...

your deliberate attempts to put words in my mouth, or to attribute to me positions I have not taken. These are your words, written by you.... when an unbeliever uses the phrase "God is good," it has no meaning the Theist finds adequate That position of yours which you wrote in your own wo...

It's not postmodern, it just Wittgenstein. You have a rule following paradox problem because you set the source of the meaning of words as internal beliefs. It's real basic stuff. You fucked up. You're trying to say something yourself, then make me answer for what you said. It's just not going to p...

There is something very wrong with the above. One can say that anything is "grounded on language" if somebody talks about it. As soon as there is any communication, it becomes about language. Physics is "grounded on language" because we define all sorts of objects and describe t...

Well, I can see that's what you prefer to think. Okay, you can keep thinking it. It's the inescapable outcome of your description of language... So you suppose. But you need to learn about how proper exegesis is done. Big topic: too big for here. But I'm sorry, you're just plain wrong if that's wha...

Exegesis. You need to understand it. Impossible, the words to explain it could mean anything, you have no way of telling. Well, I can see that's what you prefer to think. Okay, you can keep thinking it. It's the inescapable outcome of your description of language by which a word so fundamental as &...

No, really...you'd have to understand how exegesis works. It can't work at all if you don't have any reliable method of finding out which words you do and do not share with the other person. Exegesis. You need to understand it. Impossible, the words to explain it could mean anything, you have no wa...

If mister Can thinks toast is most delicious with marmalade on crusty white bread, and Mrs Can thinks toast is most delicious with honey on sourdough, the Can household is incapable of discussing what is for breakfast tomorrow. Not that they ever had any common ground for the word "bread".

You'd have to know how exegesis works to understand. I think it will be difficult to explain to you without that. That involves far too much interpretation... No, really...you'd have to understand how exegesis works. It can't work at all if you don't have any reliable method of finding out which wo...