Not being able to artificially simplify humanity and the world doesn't mean that we are screwed.
-
-
Replying to @BaileyNagy
We dont need to be able to simplify, just communicate rather than flounder & talk past each other.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
You mean us? Neither of us is floundering. And we both understand each other. I agree with you but I'm looking for a more humanistic stance.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BaileyNagy
You among others. We completely failed to have a conversation coz to you 'truth' & 'reality' encompasses beliefs & facts.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
It seems a bizarre definition, that a conversation only exists if there is agreement.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BaileyNagy
That's not my point. My point is that we cannot talk about anything if our words mean different things.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BaileyNagy
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BaileyNagy
How could I discuss how cats and dogs differ if you call both cats?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BaileyNagy
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BaileyNagy
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Therefore, we have an impasse & if we tried to discuss truth & reality, we'd mean different things & conversation would be incoherent.
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.