metaphysics is...

[Terrapin Station]

To refer to something with language.

So what is this "something" that you are referring to when you refer to "language"?

Does "language" obtain?

You're telling me know that you don't know what language is? (Or are you playing stupid?)

[Skepdick]

You're telling me know that you don't know what language is? (Or are you playing stupid?)

I am not telling you any such things.

I sure have a concept for language.

I don't know if it "obtains". How do you suggest I determine that?

[Terrapin Station]

You're telling me know that you don't know what language is? (Or are you playing stupid?)

I am not telling you any such things.

I sure have a concept for language.

I don't know if it "obtains". How do you suggest I determine that?

By learning some philosophy vocabulary before you try to argue about philosophy.

[Skepdick]

By learning some philosophy vocabulary before you try to argue about philosophy.

Does philosophy obtain?

I thought I made it perfectly clear - I am not arguing. The way you are using the word "argue" - it doesn't obtain.

[Skepdick]

By learning some philosophy vocabulary before you try to argue about philosophy.

Also, I thought I explained this to you, but incase you missed it. My science (computer science) concerns itself with metalinguistic abstraction.

In computer science, metalinguistic abstraction is the process of solving complex problems by creating a new language or vocabulary to better understand the problem space.

So when philosophers invented the vocabulary of "things obtaining", what problem were they trying to solve?

[Terrapin Station]

[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=492019 time=1611433837
Does philosophy obtain?

How would you figure out if it does?

I thought I made it perfectly clear - I am not arguing.

Apparently you were under the mistaken impression that you were being asked about this.

[Skepdick]

How would you figure out if it does?

That's precisely what I am asking you.

The word "obtain" is in your vocabulary! Surely you have a criterion for things "obtaining".

What is it?

Apparently you were under the mistaken impression that you were being asked about this.

Apparently you were under the mistaken impression that I was arguing.

Now you are being told that I am not arguing.

[Terrapin Station]

That's precisely what I am asking you.

If you have no idea how you'd figure it out you're in the wrong class in lieu of an attitude adjustment.

[Skepdick]

If you have no idea how you'd figure it out you're in the wrong class in lieu of an attitude adjustment.

You can't even convince me that there is any value in philosophy! Why would anybody waste their time/money learning anything a philosopher has to teach?

All you've done so far is appeal to your vocabularies. What so special about your particular vocabularies when I have the know-how for inventing languages?

[Terrapin Station]

You can't even convince me that there is any value in philosophy!

Apparently you missed me saying that I'd not bother trying to convince you of this? I have zero interest in that with you, because of your personality.

[Skepdick]

Apparently you missed me saying that I'd not bother trying to convince you of this? I have zero interest in that with you, because of your personality.

Isn't that an ad-hominem?

[Terrapin Station]

Apparently you missed me saying that I'd not bother trying to convince you of this? I have zero interest in that with you, because of your personality.

Isn't that an ad-hominem?

Ad hominem is a fallacy, which means that it occurs in the context of an argument. Fallacies are pertinent to argumentation. They don't amount to anything in other contexts.

The whole issue with fallacies is that they fail to guarantee validity. Validity obtains when it impossible that premises are true and a conclusion false. So fallacies are a category error outside of the context of argumentation with premises and a conclusion.

[Impenitent]

Is that from your perspective?

nope, infinity is not empirically apprehended

-Imp

If this statement, proposition, claim, perspective is NOT from 'your' perspective, then WHERE did 'it' come from, EXACTLY?

Zeno

-Imp

[Skepdick]

Ad hominem is a fallacy, which means that it occurs in the context of an argument.

And you have repetitively stated that you are of the belief that I am arguing.

Fallacies are pertinent to argumentation. They don't amount to anything in other contexts.

So in the context of your own damn mind (in which you believe that I am arguing) you are also attacking me instead of my argument (that I am supposedly making).

So that's an ad-hominem

Are you now saying that I am not arguing?

[Terrapin Station]

Ad hominem is a fallacy, which means that it occurs in the context of an argument.

And you have repetitively stated that you are of the belief that I am arguing.

Fallacies are pertinent to argumentation. They don't amount to anything in other contexts.

So in the context of your own damn mind (in which you believe that I am arguing) you are also attacking me instead of my argument (that I am supposedly making).

So that's an ad-hominem

Are you now saying that I am not arguing?

I'm simply reporting to you that I'd not bother trying to persuade you of anything. That's not an argument with premises and a conclusion. It's a report about a disposition I have.