Reformulating the analytic/synthetic distinction to make it unequivocal

[Skepdick]

Anti-metaphysician: 'Okay. If beliefs are things that exist, what are where are they, and in what way do they exist? Answers, please, without equivocation on 'thing' and 'exist', and without an appeal to mysticism. Hint: 'of course they exist' doesn't answer the question.'

For the non-intellectually challenged reader.

There are such things as stupid questions. This is one of them: "In what way does X exist?". On its own (had Peter left it there) it would've been a perfectly good question.

What makes it a stupid fucking question (and by proxy, what makes Peter a stupid fucking idiot) is that he insists that WE answer his question "without equivocation".

In what way does ANYTHING exist? In the same fucking way that everything that exists ...exists! Unequivocally what other way is there ?!?!?!?!?!

By insisting on a non-equivocal answer, while also rejecting the the non-equivocal answer Peter is setting US up for failure. What a FUCKING DICK!

[PeteOlcott]

What does that mean?

Many people get confused and believe that things that do not exist physically do not exist at all.

Many people believe in the existence of non-physical or abstract things without bothering to examine the belief.

What and where are non-physical things, and in what way do they exist? Answers, please, without equivocation on 'thing' and 'exist' - and without an appeal to mysticism.

One example will do. Thanks.

Concepts are things that do not exist physically and your disagreement that concepts exist is itself
an example of a concept thus proving that your disagreement is incorrect.

[Sculptor]

The way that I divide analytic from synthetic may be unconventional. Every aspect of knowledge that can be represented in language and encoded as strings of characters is {analytic knowledge}. Every aspect of knowledge that can only be perceived as sensations through the sense organs is {empirical knowledge}. I discard the use of the term synthetic.

The above analytic versus empirical distinction would seem to overcome any possible objection that this distinction cannot be made unequivocal.

Semantic Tautology
I am creating a brand new idea that I named {semantic tautology}. A semantic tautology occurs when a new combination of ideas is assigned to a word or phrase making a brand new term. To verify that a semantic tautology is true only requires verifying that this set of ideas has been assigned to this term. That cats are animals is an example of a semantic tautology.

Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

Animals are not cats, so no tautology is indicated.
As for your notion about analyitc/synthetic. Why not discard analytic too? Just have reason verses evidence.

[RCSaunders]

What and where are non-physical things, and in what way do they exist? Answers, please, without equivocation on 'thing' and 'exist' - and without an appeal to mysticism.

I wonder if you'd mind answering a question. What do you mean by, "exist?"

It seems like you mean, "to exist is physical," or, "nothing but the physical exists," but that may not be what you mean, so I don't want to address it unless it is.

That leads to another question, what do you regard as, "physical?" Are only entities and substances physical (rocks, planets, coal, iron, sulfur, and hydrogen, for example), or are physical properties also physical, (mass, force, momentum, size, shape, and velocity, for example)?

Thanks!

[RCSaunders]

Semantic Tautology
I am creating a brand new idea that I named {semantic tautology}. A semantic tautology occurs when a new combination of ideas is assigned to a word or phrase making a brand new term. To verify that a semantic tautology is true only requires verifying that this set of ideas has been assigned to this term. That cats are animals is an example of a semantic tautology.

Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

Animals are not cats, so no tautology is indicated.

That's right!

As for your notion about analytic/synthetic. Why not discard analytic too? Just have reason verses evidence.

How about knowledge is only possible by means of reason about evidence. Either, evidence without reason, (empiricism) or reason without evidence (idealism) are wrong views of knowledge.

[Sculptor]

Semantic Tautology
I am creating a brand new idea that I named {semantic tautology}. A semantic tautology occurs when a new combination of ideas is assigned to a word or phrase making a brand new term. To verify that a semantic tautology is true only requires verifying that this set of ideas has been assigned to this term. That cats are animals is an example of a semantic tautology.

Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

Animals are not cats, so no tautology is indicated.

That's right!

As for your notion about analytic/synthetic. Why not discard analytic too? Just have reason verses evidence.

How about knowledge is only possible by means of reason about evidence. Either, evidence without reason, (empiricism) or reason without evidence (idealism) are wrong views of knowledge.

True.
Some statements can be made in a pure analytic sense but they are meaningless without reference to the sensible world.

[Skepdick]

Some statements can be made in a pure analytic sense but they are meaningless without reference to the sensible world.

It's not enough.

This is precisely Quine's attack on analyticity and reductionism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogma ... e's_holism

[PeteOlcott]

The way that I divide analytic from synthetic may be unconventional. Every aspect of knowledge that can be represented in language and encoded as strings of characters is {analytic knowledge}. Every aspect of knowledge that can only be perceived as sensations through the sense organs is {empirical knowledge}. I discard the use of the term synthetic.

The above analytic versus empirical distinction would seem to overcome any possible objection that this distinction cannot be made unequivocal.

Semantic Tautology
I am creating a brand new idea that I named {semantic tautology}. A semantic tautology occurs when a new combination of ideas is assigned to a word or phrase making a brand new term. To verify that a semantic tautology is true only requires verifying that this set of ideas has been assigned to this term. That cats are animals is an example of a semantic tautology.

Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

Animals are not cats, so no tautology is indicated.
As for your notion about analyitc/synthetic. Why not discard analytic too? Just have reason verses evidence.

A Semantic tautology is a brand new term with a stipulated definition.
Disagreeing with a stipulated definition is a logical error.

[Sculptor]

The way that I divide analytic from synthetic may be unconventional. Every aspect of knowledge that can be represented in language and encoded as strings of characters is {analytic knowledge}. Every aspect of knowledge that can only be perceived as sensations through the sense organs is {empirical knowledge}. I discard the use of the term synthetic.

The above analytic versus empirical distinction would seem to overcome any possible objection that this distinction cannot be made unequivocal.

Semantic Tautology
I am creating a brand new idea that I named {semantic tautology}. A semantic tautology occurs when a new combination of ideas is assigned to a word or phrase making a brand new term. To verify that a semantic tautology is true only requires verifying that this set of ideas has been assigned to this term. That cats are animals is an example of a semantic tautology.

Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

Animals are not cats, so no tautology is indicated.
As for your notion about analyitc/synthetic. Why not discard analytic too? Just have reason verses evidence.

A Semantic tautology is a brand new term with a stipulated definition.
Disagreeing with a stipulated definition is a logical error.

Not when your neologism is a logical error in the first place.

[Sculptor]

The way that I divide analytic from synthetic may be unconventional. Every aspect of knowledge that can be represented in language and encoded as strings of characters is {analytic knowledge}. Every aspect of knowledge that can only be perceived as sensations through the sense organs is {empirical knowledge}. I discard the use of the term synthetic.

No knowledge can be, "encoded," as strings of characters. All knowledge consists of propositions which are constructed of concepts. "Strings of characters," are only symbols which represent concepts and have no meaning in themselves. Only concepts have meaning and what they mean are those existents they identify, that is, refer to. The meaning of a concept is the actual existents, not the concept's definition.

No knowledge is provided by direct perception. All higher animals have direct perception but it does not produce knowledge for them. Empirical knowledge is only possible by the rational identification of the existents direct perception makes available to identify and study. Only human beings are capable of intellectual knowledge.

Sorry, but your dichotomy is wrong on both counts. You have apparently been influenced by Kantian nonsense, as well as linguistic analysis and logical positivism. It's not a criticism, just and observation.

Your entire rebuttal was self-contradictory in that it was knowledge encoded as strings of characters.

Signifiers are arbitrary.
You are bring ridiculous.

[PeteOlcott]

No knowledge can be, "encoded," as strings of characters. All knowledge consists of propositions which are constructed of concepts. "Strings of characters," are only symbols which represent concepts and have no meaning in themselves. Only concepts have meaning and what they mean are those existents they identify, that is, refer to. The meaning of a concept is the actual existents, not the concept's definition.

No knowledge is provided by direct perception. All higher animals have direct perception but it does not produce knowledge for them. Empirical knowledge is only possible by the rational identification of the existents direct perception makes available to identify and study. Only human beings are capable of intellectual knowledge.

Sorry, but your dichotomy is wrong on both counts. You have apparently been influenced by Kantian nonsense, as well as linguistic analysis and logical positivism. It's not a criticism, just and observation.

Your entire rebuttal was self-contradictory in that it was knowledge encoded as strings of characters.

Signifiers are arbitrary.
You are bring ridiculous.

That I was able to decode the little shapes (characters) on my screen as a
rebuttal conclusively proves that these tiny little shapes have been stipulated
to have a specific semantic meaning.

The assignment of semantic meaning to sets of tiny little shapes is
a very well defined standard called natural language. Here is the
Chinese equivalent of what you said:

指示符是任意的。
你真可笑。

[Peter Holmes]

What and where are non-physical things, and in what way do they exist? Answers, please, without equivocation on 'thing' and 'exist' - and without an appeal to mysticism.

I wonder if you'd mind answering a question. What do you mean by, "exist?"

It seems like you mean, "to exist is physical," or, "nothing but the physical exists," but that may not be what you mean, so I don't want to address it unless it is.

That leads to another question, what do you regard as, "physical?" Are only entities and substances physical (rocks, planets, coal, iron, sulfur, and hydrogen, for example), or are physical properties also physical, (mass, force, momentum, size, shape, and velocity, for example)?

Thanks!

We use nouns to name things: rocks, planets, coal, and so on. But the meaning of a noun is not the thing it names, but rather the way we use it, which can be to name and talk about things. Meaning is use, and can be nothing else.

But this 'naming' idea easily confuses us. For example we talk about the size of things, and how x is taller than y - then ask misfiring questions: ah, but what is 'size', and what is 'being taller than'? They must be something, because nouns and relational terms are names of things, so they must have referents. Hence Socrates' stupid questions; hence the ridiculous Platonist-nominalist debate; and hence the invention of concepts, and other supposed abstract things - mysteries invented to explain mystseries of our own invention.

Suppose for now we use the word 'exist' in the spatio-temporal sense it often has, so that it applies, at least, to physical things and their properties - and the expression 'rocks, planets and coal exist' has a clear meaning.

Given that use of 'exist', what and where are abstract things - such as concepts, propositions, size, shape, meaning, truth, knowledge, identity, and so on (insert the abstract noun of choice) - and in what way do they exist, if it's not physically and spatio-temporally?

Cards on the table: I think belief in the existence of abstract things is a metaphysical delusion arising from an ancient nomenclaturist and mentalist mistake - a form of mysticism. So that so-called abstract things aren't things that do or don't exist anywhere, inside or outside the mind - which is itself an abstract fiction anyway. It's all been one huge category error.

[Skepdick]

Meaning is use, and can be nothing else.

What and where is "meaning"?
What and where is "use"?

So that so-called abstract things aren't things that do or don't exist anywhere, inside or outside the mind - which is itself an abstract fiction anyway. It's all been one huge category error.

What and where is a "category"?
What and where is an "error"?

[Sculptor]

Your entire rebuttal was self-contradictory in that it was knowledge encoded as strings of characters.

Signifiers are arbitrary.
You are being ridiculous.

That I was able to decode the little shapes (characters) on my screen as a
rebuttal conclusively proves that these tiny little shapes have been stipulated
to have a specific semantic meaning.

The assignment of semantic meaning to sets of tiny little shapes is
a very well defined standard called natural language. Here is the
Chinese equivalent of what you said:

指示符是任意的。
你真可笑。

You don't get to establish new words.
You and your attempt is rejected by the forum and shall never go any further.
Such megalomania is never rewarded.

[Skepdick]

You don't get to establish new words.

Wow! What a cuntwaffletwat!