RE: Matt Dilahunty On The Logical Absolutes
November 20, 2016 at 7:52 am
(This post was last modified: November 20, 2016 at 8:02 am by Edwardo Piet.)
I am right.
I find it rather amusingly ironic that Jor spoke of the logical absolutes only applying to one specific system of logic, and then she tried to prove by definition that they're not absolute by using one specific philosophical definition of the word "absolute" when you can't even have a proof by definition without the logical absolutes, lol.
It's all about a use mention error. "A=A" =/= A=A.
She says it's the most incoherent ramble she's heard in a while, and I am very verbose and I do repeat myself a lot. But let's take one of my paragraphs separately:
This is not "incoherent".
I don't know what you mean by it not being a universal truth though, Bennyboy. Do you mean what I was saying about the fact just because not everyone universally agrees on it doesn't stop the truth applying absolutely universally?
I find it rather amusingly ironic that Jor spoke of the logical absolutes only applying to one specific system of logic, and then she tried to prove by definition that they're not absolute by using one specific philosophical definition of the word "absolute" when you can't even have a proof by definition without the logical absolutes, lol.
It's all about a use mention error. "A=A" =/= A=A.
She says it's the most incoherent ramble she's heard in a while, and I am very verbose and I do repeat myself a lot. But let's take one of my paragraphs separately:
Quote:You can't have a theory of truth without truth=truth. Not talking about symbols. I'm not talking about the word "truth". I'm talking about actual truth. Truth has to be truth.
This is not "incoherent".
I don't know what you mean by it not being a universal truth though, Bennyboy. Do you mean what I was saying about the fact just because not everyone universally agrees on it doesn't stop the truth applying absolutely universally?
