Freedom of Religion

[genkaus]

You can't just point to a dictionary and think that you have resolved an
argument.

I can point to a dictionary and tell you that since you are not using the words as they mean, your argument is nonsensical.

Words simply aren't that concrete.

Yes, they are. In the sense that within a specific context they have specific meaning.

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.

Don't equate "reasonable" with "reason". "Reason" is the way we gain knowledge. "Reasonable" is our conclusion if the apparent knowledge gained is not contradictory to the knowledge we have. It is definitely expected that the idea of what is "reasonable" would change as knowledge grows, but reason itself does not change.

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

By indicating the content of current knowledge.

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.

Nonsense. Not all arguments, just yours. When an argument is presented, before evaluating it, one has to make sure if makes sense. If it doesn't then there is no need to go any further. Once you start making sensible arguments, I wouldn't have to point out the semantic errors and we can move on to the content of the argument itself. As long as you don't the content is indecipherable.

Any time you want to know something just run off and see what the dictionary has to say about it.

Nah. I google.

You can't build a philosophy based on semantics.

Philosophy cannot be "based" on semantics. And it cannot be built without it either. A philosophy that does not even bother to learn the meaning of the words it is expressed in would be incoherent and self-contradictory.

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

And a philosophy without semantics is like a house built of 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.

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.

And how do you propose to convey the meaning if you don't use the words according to their meaning?

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.

So we have established that you have no interest in the meaning of the words you are using to describe your concepts. How else is one supposed to understand what you are saying unless there is an objective standard for communication? Psychically?

Like I say, I'm more interested in communication than in talking to a robot who just stands there arguing the semantics of words.

Communication without semantically correct communique is pointless. Neither party can be sure if the message was understood as it was intended.

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.

Rather than misusing the words, its as if you don't understand what they mean and which premises must be true for the concepts represented by those words to be applicable.

That is the essence of true communication.

Communication requires that the communicating parties share an area of communicative commonality - in this case, words with objective meaning.

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

Absence of semantics would make communication impossible.

But let's face it, you're just extremely hostile to my concepts,

Because they don't make any sense.

so you aren't the slightest bit interested in trying to understand them.

Because without semantically correct arguments, certain understanding is not possible.

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.

What you don't have is the ability to grasp the inescapable premises that your arguments are intended to deny.

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

That I'm exacting?

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.

As long as you have no intention of making a rational and self-consistent argument - no, there is not point in communication. But don't presume that if you do make such an argument, the its fallacies and errors won't be pointed out.

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

Witchcraft - practices using something supernatural which is by definition beyond human understanding. How can it make sense when its very existence requires something that cannot make sense?

---

[quote='Abracadabra' pid='236468' dateline='1328553014']
You can't just point to a dictionary and think that you have resolved an
argument.

I can point to a dictionary and tell you that since you are not using the words as they mean, your argument is nonsensical.

Words simply aren't that concrete.

Yes, they are. In the sense that within a specific context they have specific meaning.

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.

Don't equate "reasonable" with "reason". "Reason" is the way we gain knowledge. "Reasonable" is our conclusion if the apparent knowledge gained is not contradictory to the knowledge we have. It is definitely expected that the idea of what is "reasonable" would change as knowledge grows, but reason itself does not change.

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

By indicating the content of current knowledge.

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.

Nonsense. Not all arguments, just yours. When an argument is presented, before evaluating it, one has to make sure if makes sense. If it doesn't then there is no need to go any further. Once you start making sensible arguments, I wouldn't have to point out the semantic errors and we can move on to the content of the argument itself. As long as you don't the content is indecipherable.

Any time you want to know something just run off and see what the dictionary has to say about it.

Nah. I google.

You can't build a philosophy based on semantics.

Philosophy cannot be "based" on semantics. And it cannot be built without it either. A philosophy that does not even bother to learn the meaning of the words it is expressed in would be incoherent and self-contradictory.

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

And a philosophy without semantics is like a house built of 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.

[quote='Abracadabra' pid='236468' dateline='1328553014']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.

And how do you propose to convey the meaning if you don't use the words according to their meaning?

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.

So we have established that you have no interest in the meaning of the words you are using to describe your concepts. How else is one supposed to understand what you are saying unless there is an objective standard for communication? Psychically?

Like I say, I'm more interested in communication than in talking to a robot who just stands there arguing the semantics of words.

Communication without semantically correct communique is pointless. Neither party can be sure if the message was understood as it was intended.

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.

Rather than misusing the words, its as if you don't understand what they mean and which premises must be true for the concepts represented by those words to be applicable.

That is the essence of true communication.

Communication requires that the communicating parties share an area of communicative commonality - in this case, words with objective meaning.

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

Absence of semantics would make communication impossible.

But let's face it, you're just extremely hostile to my concepts,

Because they don't make any sense.

so you aren't the slightest bit interested in trying to understand them.

Because without semantically correct arguments, certain understanding is not possible.

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.

What you don't have is the ability to grasp the inescapable premises that your arguments are intended to deny.

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

That I'm exacting?

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.

As long as you have no intention of making a rational and self-consistent argument - no, there is not point in communication. But don't presume that if you do make such an argument, the its fallacies and errors won't be pointed out.

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

Witchcraft - practices using something supernatural which is by definition beyond human understanding. How can it make sense when its very existence requires something that cannot make sense?

Why isn't the post showing?