If a person works in a supermarket and is a Scream fan, are they a Scream fan as they work in a supermarket?

[trokanmariel]

If a person works in a supermarket and is a Scream fan, are they a Scream fan as they work in a supermarket? (Scream as in the Scream movies)

[Age]

If a person works in a supermarket and is a Scream fan, are they a Scream fan as they work in a supermarket? (Scream as in the Scream movies)

NO.

EVERY human being is a human being, which does and thinks things.

There is NO such actual 'thing' as a "scream fan". There are, however, some human beings who enjoy some movies, like for example, the "scream" movies. And, some of these human beings work in supermarkets, some times.

[Belinda]

People are much influenced by their peers. Education is for arming the individual against bad ideas, and for leading towards better ideas.

[FlashDangerpants]

You know that thing people do sometimes where they submit a gibberish paper to an esteemed scientific journal to see if it will get published even though it's total bollocks? That's what trokenmariel is doing to you guys, why are so many of you biting?

[Belinda]

You know that thing people do sometimes where they submit a gibberish paper to an esteemed scientific journal to see if it will get published even though it's total bollocks? That's what trokenmariel is doing to you guys, why are so many of you biting?

You could be right, and I have actually wondered if Trokenmariel is pulling our legs.

Many people respect communication by language to such an extent that they try to make sense even of what looks like nonsense. I do so. Like when someone trolls bad ideas in a more explicit format than Trokenmariel's and with better syntax, these posts can be useful springboards for ideas.

Don't you see that a general principle can be abstracted from Trokenmariel's OP? I can.

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm fairly meh on the question of whether personal identitiy should be described as some collection of mere physical facts about a blob of flesh sitting in a prticular chair, or should be a matter of some woo-woo investigation of all the things we dream, say and eat. For me it's a set of language games with the rules being relevant only according to a context.

So for instance when we say "TK is the guy who writes nonsense of forums because he's toying with B" not much is needed for us to meaningfully identify TK and B. TKs wife, husband or fleshlight would have a different descriptive context when saying "TK is the most overwhelmingly average lover I have ever encountered" and the language game in action there would imply more about the nature of what counts as a personal identity for the purpose of such a proposition.

Stuff about whether to use a descriptive context suitable for one sort of language game within the rules of another, or to aggregate all such contexts into some unworkable and meaningless whole doesn't put a breeze up my skirt personally.

[henry quirk]

If a person works in a supermarket and is a Scream fan, are they a Scream fan as they work in a supermarket? (Scream as in the Scream movies)

Yes.

[trokanmariel]

If a person works in a supermarket and is a Scream fan, are they a Scream fan as they work in a supermarket? (Scream as in the Scream movies)

NO.

EVERY human being is a human being, which does and thinks things.

There is NO such actual 'thing' as a "scream fan". There are, however, some human beings who enjoy some movies, like for example, the "scream" movies. And, some of these human beings work in supermarkets, some times.

If there can't be such a thing as a Scream fan, it stands to reason that there can't be any such thing as a capitalist or socialist

[trokanmariel]

If a person works in a supermarket and is a Scream fan, are they a Scream fan as they work in a supermarket? (Scream as in the Scream movies)

Yes.

How so?

(Thanks for the answer, by the way)

[henry quirk]

If a person works in a supermarket and is a Scream fan, are they a Scream fan as they work in a supermarket? (Scream as in the Scream movies)

Yes.

How so?

(Thanks for the answer, by the way)

Joe can be a fan of Scream while workin' in the grocery, while sittin' on the toilet, while drivin' on the highway, or while bangin' the fat chick he picked in the bar.

His activities of the moment don't negate his likes.

[Impenitent]

screaming into fans makes your voice sounds funny

the market isn't a supermarket unless it wears a cape...

-Imp

[henry quirk]

screaming into fans makes your voice sounds funny

the market isn't a supermarket unless it wears a cape...

-Imp

[Belinda]

I'm fairly meh on the question of whether personal identitiy should be described as some collection of mere physical facts about a blob of flesh sitting in a prticular chair, or should be a matter of some woo-woo investigation of all the things we dream, say and eat. For me it's a set of language games with the rules being relevant only according to a context.

So for instance when we say "TK is the guy who writes nonsense of forums because he's toying with B" not much is needed for us to meaningfully identify TK and B. TKs wife, husband or fleshlight would have a different descriptive context when saying "TK is the most overwhelmingly average lover I have ever encountered" and the language game in action there would imply more about the nature of what counts as a personal identity for the purpose of such a proposition.

Stuff about whether to use a descriptive context suitable for one sort of language game within the rules of another, or to aggregate all such contexts into some unworkable and meaningless whole doesn't put a breeze up my skirt personally.

Your take on personal identity is objective; mine was subjective. I mean that to objectively identify I might note circumstantial evidence such as works in Walmart or writes nonsence on the forum, or "The most average lover". The most conclusive way to identify someone is DNA profile, or perhaps dentition records.

My take on personal identity which is closer to the supermarket scenario is subjective personal identity i.e. "who do I think I am?"or "

I identify myself as a Scream fan as do the others who work here."

[trokanmariel]

Yes.

How so?

(Thanks for the answer, by the way)

Joe can be a fan of Scream while workin' in the grocery, while sittin' on the toilet, while drivin' on the highway, or while bangin' the fat chick he picked in the bar.

His activities of the moment don't negate his likes.

But what if his activities of the moment are about negating his likes?

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm fairly meh on the question of whether personal identitiy should be described as some collection of mere physical facts about a blob of flesh sitting in a prticular chair, or should be a matter of some woo-woo investigation of all the things we dream, say and eat. For me it's a set of language games with the rules being relevant only according to a context.

So for instance when we say "TK is the guy who writes nonsense of forums because he's toying with B" not much is needed for us to meaningfully identify TK and B. TKs wife, husband or fleshlight would have a different descriptive context when saying "TK is the most overwhelmingly average lover I have ever encountered" and the language game in action there would imply more about the nature of what counts as a personal identity for the purpose of such a proposition.

Stuff about whether to use a descriptive context suitable for one sort of language game within the rules of another, or to aggregate all such contexts into some unworkable and meaningless whole doesn't put a breeze up my skirt personally.

Your take on personal identity is objective; mine was subjective. I mean that to objectively identify I might note circumstantial evidence such as works in Walmart or writes nonsence on the forum, or "The most average lover". The most conclusive way to identify someone is DNA profile, or perhaps dentition records.

My take on personal identity which is closer to the supermarket scenario is subjective personal identity i.e. "who do I think I am?"or "

I identify myself as a Scream fan as do the others who work here."

You are still organising a subject and a predicate into a proposition, that's just another of the available language games to which I was referring, it just happens to be one of the inumerable ones from the internal perspective.