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

Eoppa, non literal readings are inherently ambiguous as words / phrases have literal meanings

@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

Its actually more accessible

To philosophers who are used to using an abbreviation as a standin

Google "intrinsic morality"

google intrinsic then google morality