1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt's interesting how, in the same sentence, you admit that you don't know what I mean and yet claim to know what my idea was and declare it wrong.
Whatever you mean by it is irrelevant to my criticisms about your idea that there is a knowledge-dependent relation between arguments and tautologies.
It's also interesting how you changed this imaginary argument of mine from this:
the truth values of an argument's propositions [...] yield a tautology.
to the weaker version:
there is a knowledge-dependent relation between arguments and tautologies
I have to say that, at least, you're getting closer.
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't need to know what you mean by it in order to know that it's wrong. Much in the same way that a tautology's referents need not be known in order to identify it as a tautology. It's quite elegant.
It's interesting how, in the same sentence, you admit that you don't know what I mean and yet claim to know what my idea was and declare it wrong.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSince it is the verb, hence the operator, then you do need to know what it means.
I don't need to know what you mean by it in order to know that it's wrong. Much in the same way that a tautology's referents need not be known in order to identify it as a tautology. It's quite elegant.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThat's rich, considering you're the one trying to lure me into a wild goose chase.
I'm not going on a wild goose chase. Just tell me what characterizes a non-tautological argument.
The fact that you haven't even bothered to comment on LJ's topic is revealing. Your issue is with me. So if you want my indulgence, I require yours.
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesLemonJello, to which my post was addressed, had no problem understanding what I meant.
His question is not addressed to me. My issue is with you, because you are attempting to perpetuate confused logical notions, which I cannot in good conscience allow.
It's not my fault you still haven't understood what I meant and refuse to let me illustrate it.
Edit - On the other hand, this is pointless. The people who I care to discuss with understood what I meant. You clearly haven't and are unwilling to try to. Ta-ta. I just hope this ridiculous tango hasn't killed the thread.
Originally posted by PalynkaLemonJello is much more gracious than I am, which is why I'm a BWA soldier and he's not. He was probably just leaving the dirty work to me. I'd be surprised if he didn't endorse my objections to your claim.
LemonJello, to which my post was addressed, had no problem understanding what I meant.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesRead his post. He says I would be right, had the definition of infallibility been the one I was alluding to (which had been hinted in his opening posts).
I'd be surprised if he didn't endorse my objections to your claim.
I would have agreed with you, if I had said what you claim me to have said. Fact is, I didn't.
Originally posted by whodeyDo you consider love to be infallible? Put another way, is there a better way to interact with those around you?
Do you consider love to be infallible? Put another way, is there a better way to interact with those around you? It seems to me that if yoiu walk in love with others around you, this would be an ideal state or infallible state. In such a world sin is nonexistent, therefore, it is considered to be "perfect".
I would share your appraisal of meeting the world and others with love and compassion, and I would generally agree that it is the "best" we can do in our dealings. I don't think I would use "infallible" to describe any of this, but I would argue that the cultivation of virtuous action-guiding dispositions and aspects of character is conducive to our living and interacting well.
Not entirely sure how any of this is really relevant to the initial topic of the thread.