Ah, fuck it. If we can't even agree what 'truth' & 'reality' mean, we are screwed in regards to both.
-
-
Whilst the purpose of my tweets was to distinguish between the two. Nothing humanistic about expanding words to meaninglessness.
-
Or including supernatural and unevidenced claims in 'truth' and 'reality.' https://humanism.org.uk/humanism/how-humanist-are-you/ …
-
I meant humanistic in the wider sense as in humanistic geography.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It seems a bizarre definition, that a conversation only exists if there is agreement.
-
That's not my point. My point is that we cannot talk about anything if our words mean different things.
-
We can't discuss truth or reality if you use those words to describe things which are true & real AND things which are not true and real.
-
How could I discuss how cats and dogs differ if you call both cats?
-
For me to discuss truth & reality with you, I'd have to agree they include false beliefs & errors. The concept I want to discuss can't exist
-
Or you'd have to agree that truth & reality are different from false beliefs & errors. The conflation you want to make can't be made.
-
Therefore, we have an impasse & if we tried to discuss truth & reality, we'd mean different things & conversation would be incoherent.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.