Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'namig'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Freedomain Topics
    • General Messages
    • Current Events
    • Libertarianism, Anarchism and Economics
    • Atheism and Religion
    • Philosophy
    • Self Knowledge
    • Peaceful Parenting
    • Men's Issues, Feminism and Gender
    • Education
    • Science & Technology
    • Reviews & Recommendations
    • Miscellaneous
  • Freedomain Media Content
    • New Freedomain Content and Updates
    • General Feedback
    • Freedomain Show Lists
    • Technical Issues
  • Freedomain Listener Corner
    • Introduce Yourself!
    • Meet 'n Greet!
    • Listener Projects
    • Community Reference Information

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


AIM


Gallery URL


Blog URL


Location


Interests


Occupation

Found 1 result

  1. Hello FreeDomainRadio members, I recently came across a Youtube video of Stefan's about free will. I am aware of the ban on free will discussion on these boards and that is not the subject matter of this post. If I reference that video, it is only in reference to non-free will centered theses. In this video "Free Will Part 2" at around 20:52 Stefan mentions the unique ability of human beings to form "abstract, rational, consistent, objective, definitions." Perhaps I am missing some video but it seems like this sums up Molyneux's views on how language works. More precisely I take this to outline Stefan's working theory of meaning. My position is this, meaning of language is how it is used (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations#Language.2C_meaning.2C_and_use). As such, the notion that meaning necessarily is rational, consistent, objective, or that definitions like those in a dictionary are how meaning in language works is wrong. It's overly broad in that there are aspects of meaning that don't require those conditions and simultaneously overly narrow in that there are many other ways that meaning can arise (all of them consisting of usage). "Abstract" won't do the work here unless you can formulate some version of "abstraction" that doesn't contradict "definite," "consistent," and "logical." Mic drop.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.