Message from @primarina
Discord ID: 633742907676819511
So, my version fo the phrase is also valid
And I do think considering intrinsic subjective ethics is worthwhile
If I define fish to mean pants I can say I'm wearing fish but that isn't very conducive to a conversation
But that's very different from what I'm doing
I'm taking the meaning of the two words, to make a more literal version of the phrase
That's simply not what is done in philosophy, you take the meaning of it and then address that
You were trying to understand what I was saying and you change it to mean something else
U lads wanna continue arguing or can I post a religion qotd
Well, I'm taking the meaning of the words and addressing them, rather than just the meaning of the phrase
Telling me I can't use intrinsic literally, is kinda weird
That's just bad motives then
You address the meaning of the words rather than a literal denotation of it
I'm not arguing with your usage, I'm defending my usage of the component words to form a similiar phrase of distinct meaning.
You were arguing my usage actually
And pointing out how the phrase as you used it might mislead some people, and be ambiguous to others, the philosophic common term or not
<@&588707615643795456> Daily Question ✝
- Should the state actively support a religion? Should States have the right to engage in missionary work?
Yes
Its actually more ambiguous to use it your way primarina
The state should guarantee freedom of religion
Etymology also includes the usage of it historically, and that simply isn't it
@GlobalDelete @Deleted User explain why
No
Primarina, read a book on linguistics
I accept your usage as a figure of speach
The state has no right to enforce a certain ideology or religion upon their citizens
cringe
The "literal" definition is based on it's common usage
But the common usage of the phrase is distinct from the common usage of the words
and the common process for combining words
I think there is serious hazard to rejecting that altertate literal interpretation / usage of the words
Intrinsic means in and of itself, aka objective, I don't see your problem here
There are multiple definitions of words you know?
But something can be intrinsic to the self
objective is no longer used as a synonym to intrinsic afaik
It *can* but that is a different definition hardly used ever if at all
So how is that less ambiguous
Um, the phrase is ambiguous
As to which interpretation to use
Literally I would be hard pressed to find that in any philosophical work or anything by laymen even
One may be more common, but it is also less accessible