This isn't hard. We can certainly disagree about what animal the word 'cat' describes & discuss that semantic disagreement. 1/2
-
-
-
But if we do not resolve that disagreement, we cannot discuss cats. 'They have soft fur & claws.' 'No, they have tough hides and a trunk.'
-
This is not me being unreasonable & refusing to discuss anything with you unless you agree with me. It just doesn't work.
-
It simply isn't possible to discuss the distinction between objective reality & false beliefs with someone who calls them both 'reality'.
-
For purely logical reasons. To discuss a distinction between two things, both people have to accept they are distinct.
-
It could be true or false that they are distinct. If its false, no point in having conversation about how they are distinct & why it matters
-
Sorry. I know I'm labouring this point but it seems the problem is not clear. Its simply a practical necessity to have some agreement.
-
Everyone involved in a discussion about whether evolution can work by group selection or not needs to accept that evolution is real.
-
OK, I'm going to shut up now.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I agree with you otherwise. Googling "subjective truth" reveals people who say all truth is subjective. And I cry out NOOO!!
-
You're not a lost cause. I will work on you. ;-)
-
Thanks for taking the time. I find some standpoints too rigid for my contrarian nature, tho I take the point that they probably need to be!
-
You're very good-natured, Adrian!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Maybe I am a PoMo - you are right but I think I am as well :) Semantics is a killer.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.