the name references the amusing coinage that occasionally pops up when people forget the word 'muslim'
-
-
Replying to @khalidbinyaqub
In any sense of that word, I not only defy it but also fight it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @khalidbinyaqub
This not an atheist response but someone who has seen the depths of the organized religion.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza
so many senses of the word 'muslim' come to mind, it's hard to understand how one could fight all of them and not be an atheist, esp. since the most fundamental meaning is simply a submitter to God. Unless you believe in God but still fight against God, which seems ill advised
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @khalidbinyaqub
This is the problem, it's like saying there are many senses of the world or atheism, so how to encounter them? This is a loose and cognitively lax way of approaching problems. Once we lift the bounds of interpretation then we are in free-floating theoretical and practical caprice
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza
the statement that there are many senses of 'world' or 'atheism' (or 'theism' or 'god' for that matter) and so we should encounter those various senses/meanings differently seems sensible to me actually
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @khalidbinyaqub @NegarestaniReza
I would say this is almost the only alternative to cognitive laxity, to pursue the meanings of words in their usage, that's why i'm seeking clarification of what it means to not be an atheist but to fight every sense of the word 'muslim'
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @khalidbinyaqub
If you are a pragmatist proponent of meaning then all good, but then you can't ignore adversarial games either.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @khalidbinyaqub
The problem with many religious people is that they want have the pragmatic cake of meaning-as-use but without the ingredients and actions that go into making it. It's not going happen without a lot of gerrymandering.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza
not sure what the ingredients of meaning are in this analogy and how that relates to religion. If anything I would say that religious people are prone prone to essentialism (or ‘ingredientism’) and approaching meanings ontologically rather than epistemologically
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Meaning as use does not come from ideology but impersonal / interpersonal logic which is that of objectivity. Anything else is psychologism in disguise.
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.