Philosophy Now Forum

What I'm saying is that, pending evidence for the existence of so-called abstract things - such as meaning, truth, knowledge, and so on - if you wind up arguing that words, symbols, etc. do not have meanings, that there is no knowledge, etc., then you should realize you've royally f---ed up somewhe...

1 A location-criterion for what we call subjectivity and objectivity doesn't work. It's a legacy from the dualist idea of mind-dependence and mind-independence. 2 Meaning isn't a kind of thing that exists with a location, such as inside or outside brains. That's a metaphysical delusion, as is the i...

The most rational bases of morality is our common biology, that which supports life is moral that which negates life in whatever degree is wrong. What is "rational" about that? I'm not asking because I disagree with "that which supports life is moral . . ." I'm asking because I ...

1 A location-criterion for what we call subjectivity and objectivity doesn't work. It's exactly what I'm talking about when I talk about this stuff. The terms don't matter. What I'm talking about, whatever terms we choose to use for it, is the location of meaning phenomena and the upshots of that. ...

I think you're right about the physical and social context within which - or background against which - we live and communicate. But I suggest that claims such as 'all meaning is subjective' misfire. We use the word 'meaning' and its cognates in many different contexts, by no means all of which inv...

My next post will be interesting, Promises, promises. and i will post it around 8 pm. And promises broken. At any rate, you have the right to worship as you choose, practice the religion you choose, etc. I'm not sure why anyone would think that you do not. What would suggest to anyone that you don't?

The most rational bases of morality is our common biology, that which supports life is moral that which negates life in whatever degree is wrong. What is "rational" about that? I'm not asking because I disagree with "that which supports life is moral . . ." I'm asking because I ...

In short, freedom to x, or with respect to x, is the ability to make a choice about x. So, freedom of religion, for example, means that one is able to choose what religion to worship or not, including choosing no religion at all. I posted earlier, freedom is the ability to make 'informed' choice ab...

In short, freedom to x, or with respect to x, is the ability to make a choice about x.

So, freedom of religion, for example, means that one is able to choose what religion to worship or not, including choosing no religion at all.

Why is anything 'wrong'? Someone decided it was and the idea gradually caught on. *It went out of fashion , just as there are things people find acceptable today that will horrify people in the future. *No, it did not. Is this your answer? Slavery isn't wrong (or right): it's just currently out of ...

Thanks for your response. I agree. What can be said about those who present possibilities without supporting reason? For example: Person 1: "Global warming is real" (without any reason (proven or unproven)) Person 2: "Global warming is real because temperatures have been rising over ...

The most common take on this is: "X is logically possible just in case x is not logically impossible, where 'logically impossible' refers to being or entailing a logical contradiction, and we're in a non-paraconsistent logic." Thanks for your response. I agree. What can be said about thos...

What does the Time Cube tell us about this?

You read some crazy ones here, but this just about takes the cake.

The most common take on this is:

"X is logically possible just in case x is not logically impossible, where 'logically impossible' refers to being or entailing a logical contradiction, and we're in a non-paraconsistent logic."