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
-
-
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 -
Replying to @khalidbinyaqub @NegarestaniReza
for my part i think a rapprochement between a functionalist and essentialist account of meaning is v possible especially in semiotics, i think of the old arabic phrase, “المعاني مطروحة في الطريق”. It’s form/content issue (though i anticipate saying so will open another can of
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @khalidbinyaqub
Things don't have meanings, concepts have meanings and concepts are inferential webs which are not given in their totality.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza
i’d agree with the latter but i’m not sure about the former
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
How do you see the concept red then?
-
-
Replying to @NegarestaniReza
i'm fairly partial to merleau-ponty's account of red in le visible et l'invisible, which your question brings to mindpic.twitter.com/U45xWC5skb
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @khalidbinyaqub
I can go along with this account to a certain extent. But to say '*this* is *red*', you need adversaries in the logical sense. What is 'this' and what does 'red' imply in an inferential interaction framework?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 4 more replies
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.