is this edited

@•Luke• trt?

We should replace true and false with based and cringe

Law of excluded middle

?

I don't see how there can be proposition s that are neither based or cringe

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/427622005232107534/626822785204748309/unknown.png , https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/427622005232107534/626823325519314974/unknown.png , https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/427622005232107534/626829146768539688/unknown.png https://www.pdcnet.org/monist/content/monist_2013_0096_0004_0605_0621 Since we were talking about phil of mind and mental properties ,i came across this recently in responce to self defeat arguments agaisnt eliminativism or mental fictionalism sounds crazy tbh @Deleted User @•Luke•

just read the pictures

not the entire thing

@Deleted User he says that truth is a folk psychology term so self refuting arguments dont

work

Property dualism cringe

He is a deflationist about metaphysical language as well

@Deleted User you should ask phillip he had a defeater irrc

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Diego_Machuca/publication/280972889_Suspension_Equipollence_and_Inquiry_A_Reply_to_Wieland/links/5bc8eb1ca6fdcc03c7909ae0/Suspension-Equipollence-and-Inquiry-A-Reply-to-Wieland.pdf '' Pyrrhonian suspension of judgment does not rest on a commitment to some rational principle or norm. Some interpreters have indeed claimed that the Pyrrhonist’s suspension is the result of the adherence to a norm according to which one is rationally required to suspend judgment about whether p if it appears to one that there is no reason to either believe or disbelieve p (see esp. Perin 2010: ch. 2). But in line with most interpreters, I think that suspension should rather be construed as the result of a psychological constraint: suspension is the involuntary psychological effect of being confronted with arguments that strike one as equally persuasive. Given that the Pyrrhonist is a thinking being (PH I 24) who is hardwired to respond in specific ways, he is affected by the consideration of arguments pro and con p and automatically reacts in a given way, even though he refrains from making assertions about both whether those arguments are sound and whether they are objectively equipollent (see Machuca 2011b: sect. 5; 2013: sect. 4).''

@chain orbitter

What is this convo

Who the hell is doing that

Eating with open mouth in vc

@Deleted User is this being recorded?

@Deleted User to assert a statement is just to assert that it is true basically truth doesn't have a nature beyond ordinary claims it would reject both realism and antirealism about truth

@Deleted User isn't ethical naturalism compatible with physicalism?

@Windle not peter boghossian

@Windle they are talking about an epistemic relativist philosopher

Thanks,will @Deleted User take a look but his objection prolly has been addressed in the literature by now.

@「ＳｏｃｒａｄｅｅｚＮｕｔｓ」✓ᴸᵉᵗ ε<0 https://academic.oup.com/cpe/article-abstract/38/1/1/5505409?redirectedFrom=fulltext

@Windle

https://mises.org/library/error-equilibrium-and-equilibration-austrian-price-theory @Windle @「ＳｏｃｒａｄｅｅｚＮｕｔｓ」✓ᴸᵉᵗ ε<0 ''Economic theorists working within the broad Mengerian
tradition conceive of the actual market prices realized in clock
time as being market-clearing in nature. These prices thrown up
by the exchange process undertaken in real world markets are said
to establish momentary equilibria, with an equality of the quantities demanded and supplied and an exhaustion of all potential
gains from trade. This view contrast sharply with those of the
economists comprising the neoclassical mainstream, who instead
view realized prices as disequilibrium prices, with a prevailing
inequality of supply and demand.'' this an austrian that describes why every price is a market clearing price or equilibrium prices

@Windle it was from the previous convo when we were talking about why austrians

think every price is an equilibrium price

''Formulated succinctly, Frege’s argument for arithmetic-object platonism proceeds as follows:

i. Singular terms referring to natural numbers appear in true simple statements.

ii. It is possible for simple statements with singular terms as components to be true only if the objects to which those singular terms refer exist.

Therefore,

iii. the natural numbers exist.

iv. If the natural numbers exist, they are abstract objects that are independent of all rational activities.

Therefore,

v. the natural numbers are existent abstract objects that are independent of all rational activities, that is, arithmetic-object platonism is true.'' https://www.iep.utm.edu/mathplat/#SSH2aii

@Windle

https://philpapers.org/rec/RUSLOR there is an argument for logical platonism here

as well

’’understood as issuing from the picture on which the proper subject of ontological investigation is existence in a privileged metaphysical sense – fundamental, or
real, or deep, whatever it may be. The philosopher who engages in such a project needs
to at least supply some reason to believe that a language expressing such a sense of ‘exists’ could be acquired. In the absence of any such reason there must be a concern that it
is not possible to say, nor to think, that anything exists in the Serious Ontologist’s sense.
This being so, the question, asked by him, ‘what exists?’ is not meaningful; nor – more
to the point – is ‘What exists in the sense ‘exists’ would have in a joint-carving variant
of English?’. The complaint is not that the Serious Ontologist has no justification for any
particular answer to this question. Serious Ontologists themselves generally concede as
much and content themselves with sketching toy theories, outling possible ways the world
could be. Rather, before we even get to the stage of limning the fundamental furniture of
the universe, actual or possible, the enquiry is out of order, since it is not addressing an
intelligible question. Even the perfunctory Quinean response ‘everything’ would be out of
order in this context, since there is no question to which it is the answer.’’ http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/120406/1/IfAnOntologistCouldSpeak.pdf @Windle

@「ＳｏｃｒａｄｅｅｚＮｕｔｓ」✓ᴸᵉᵗ ε<0 if it was up to method they would put sectus or pyrrhonism first

@「ＳｏｃｒａｄｅｅｚＮｕｔｓ」✓ᴸᵉᵗ ε<0 https://aap.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13869795.2019.1617341#.XZQnhUYzZPY

@「ＳｏｃｒａｄｅｅｚＮｕｔｓ」✓ᴸᵉᵗ ε<0

https://twitter.com/monerty1/status/1176279236929380362

@Deleted User i thought you said you didn't find demon slayer interesting.

@Deleted User i dont have a steam account

@Deleted User idk how to do bots

What

There are no bots in my server if you have noticed

Car washing

@Deleted User it was self defense

@chain season 3 was bad

@Deleted User >lonely in vc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EEW-9NDM5k

@Deleted User im trans friendly

@Deleted User what where they saying in toms server?

@Deleted User why do you think that there fascists in my server?

@chain no sugar?

@Deleted User https://twitter.com/motimizra/status/1175869867083350016

@Deleted User @Marcdoof @chain

thats the generation from the game

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txjJi7RZ6lo

@•Luke•

THATS NOT THE MOVIE

OMG YOU ARE A FAKE FUN

the mask of light

thats the first movie

the toa of light

’’ According to it, semantic anti-realism is
incoherent since semantic notions are presupposed in the very statement of the
thesis, as much as in the whole debate between realists and anti-realists.
Boghossian ´s conclusion is that a realistic, though non-naturalistic, stance
towards semantic content is necessary –namely, it should be non-contingently
adopted.’’ , ’’there is no reason to accept Boghossian´s argument, which
we find flawed. From the premise that the semantic anti-realist has to use
language to state her thesis and express her disagreement with the realist, it
does not follow that she has to subscribe to the realist´s terms: what she is
presupposing is that there is an alternative explanation of what she is doing,
which does not appeal to substantial reference and truth –it may be even a
purely physical phenomenon, fully accountable in neurological terms, or a
completely pragmatic one. So, there is no reason to think that the thesis that
there is a level of semantic content that has to be accounted for in terms of
reference and truth is itself a necessary truth’’ The Problem of living a philosophical life without object naturalism @Deleted User What do you think of this defence of semantic irrealism?

im not going in there talk later

@Deleted User yeah but they usually have already developped deflationary semantics that doesnt commit them to substantial theory of refrence or truth and that allows them to engange in linguistic practise

but yeah after they take this route its on them to show how neurological terms or some deflationary semantics explain the linguistic practices they engange in

@Zess#6201 what are you gonna do?

@Deleted User

Wow what

https://twitter.com/sillyolyou @Deleted User this person is a way higher iq gender non connformist than any of the ones you cited

check their blog as well

and their tweets

@Deleted User lol did you delete my post?

@Deleted User jack holds them to ahigh standard as well just so you know

@Deleted User the onee where i pinged chain

@Deleted User you want to make chain trans and a fascist

very similar to danacrag in that sense

@chain

@Deleted User just overwhelm @chain with continental esoteric fascist philsophy and shout at him as well that always works

@Durgen lol i thought attlee was jack in twitter for some time

@Deleted User you dont need metaphysics to have justified true belief in the christian god thats all epistemology fam

michael dummet didnt believe metaphysical languange represented anything

he was a christian

wittgenstein had a similar view of metaphysical languange and made the case for quasi fideism

@Hagar yeah i remember that guy why

@Deleted User just become rich and you will be able to be a neet for the most part of your life after that

Yeah

Why

@Hagar haven't talked to him in 2 to 3 years

Twich

@Hagar what

Ok

@Hagar wait did you mean twist?

also almalexia was insane

@Deleted User looolol he is here

He is an atw doxxer thats what i heard in sone leftist server

@Deleted User you like top gun ?

@Deleted User why did you they ban you ?