Freedom of Religion

[Abracadabra]

Unfortunately, that is the state of most of philosophy. A lot of pseudo-scientific, semi-religious intellectual sounding crap that means little. Sort of the bullshit you were spouting about the "spiritual essence of reality" and how, somehow, "quantum mechanics gives you permission to believe that".

Fortunately. I'm not a philosopher. I don't get lost in semantics, I clarify them . If the meaning or usage of a word seems suspect, I look it up, thereby avoiding any thought paralysis. If the words in an argument are used wrongly, I point it out and the whole argument automatically falls apart.

You can't just point to a dictionary and think that you have resolved an argument. Words simply aren't that concrete. As I had already pointed out, even our concept of "reason" changes as we learn more about the nature of reality. What we deem to be "unreasonable" at one point in time, suddenly becomes "reasonable" at another point in time. Our very understanding of what we deem to be "reasonable" chances dynamically.

So how could a dictionary even help in cases like this?

If you could simply turn to a dictionary to decide every argument all of science and philosophy would be finished and there would be no mysteries left. Any time you want to know something just run off and see what the dictionary has to say about it.

You can't build a philosophy based on semantics. It simply doesn't provide a strong enough foundation to build upon. It would be like trying to build a house on quicksand.

I have no interest in going there. I read over the rest of your post, and as far as I can see that's precisely where you're headed.

So thanks, but no thanks. I'm not interested in getting into endless fruitless arguments over semantics. It's just not my cup of tea.

I didn't think it was. You like to use words without regard for their meaning or their referents. Similarly, you like to use concepts and arguments without regard or knowledge of their underlying premises. Clearly, you'd be uncomfortable if the words and concepts are discussed with their actual meaning.[/quote]

That's totally false. I'm willing to discuss anything with anyone who is truly interested in the concept that I'm attempting to convey. But if they are going to stand there with a dictionary attempting to try to claim what I mean based on dictionary definitions, that's would make communication impossible because they would be attempting to force concepts onto me rather than genuinely trying to understand the concepts that I'm trying to get at.

Like I say, I'm more interested in communication than in talking to a robot who just stands there arguing the semantics of words. If you think I've misused a word, instead of arguing with me about the meaning of the word, just ask me to clarify my point.

That is the essence of true communication.

And communication is the ultimate goal of speech. Not arguing about semantics.

But let's face it, you're just extremely hostile to my concepts, so you aren't the slightest bit interested in trying to understand them. All you are interested in doing it creating a barrier where it's impossible to communicate at all an pretend that it's all my fault because I supposedly don't even have the ability to use words correctly.

That's overly pompous on your part and totally false to boot.

And that's why it would be a waste of time to attempt to communicate with you. Face it, you just don't want to hear it. And that's all there is to that.

---

I love it when a dude who believes in witchcraft accuses someone of not making sense.

Priceless.

Just because witchcraft doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that it's nonsense.

I love it when someone thinks that their view of the world represents the absolute truth.

Priceless