Message from @primarina

Discord ID: 633743605705736203


2019-10-15 19:07:16 UTC  

Its actually more ambiguous to use it your way primarina

2019-10-15 19:07:17 UTC  

The state should guarantee freedom of religion

2019-10-15 19:07:42 UTC  

Etymology also includes the usage of it historically, and that simply isn't it

2019-10-15 19:08:03 UTC  

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

2019-10-15 19:08:05 UTC  
2019-10-15 19:08:15 UTC  

No

2019-10-15 19:08:21 UTC  

Primarina, read a book on linguistics

2019-10-15 19:08:31 UTC  

I accept your usage as a figure of speach

2019-10-15 19:08:33 UTC  

The state has no right to enforce a certain ideology or religion upon their citizens

2019-10-15 19:08:40 UTC  

cringe

2019-10-15 19:08:42 UTC  

The "literal" definition is based on it's common usage

2019-10-15 19:09:02 UTC  

But the common usage of the phrase is distinct from the common usage of the words

2019-10-15 19:09:10 UTC  

and the common process for combining words

2019-10-15 19:09:32 UTC  

I think there is serious hazard to rejecting that altertate literal interpretation / usage of the words

2019-10-15 19:09:42 UTC  

Intrinsic means in and of itself, aka objective, I don't see your problem here

2019-10-15 19:09:54 UTC  

There are multiple definitions of words you know?

2019-10-15 19:10:01 UTC  

But something can be intrinsic to the self

2019-10-15 19:10:23 UTC  

objective is no longer used as a synonym to intrinsic afaik

2019-10-15 19:10:23 UTC  

It *can* but that is a different definition hardly used ever if at all

2019-10-15 19:10:30 UTC  

So how is that less ambiguous

2019-10-15 19:10:49 UTC  

Um, the phrase is ambiguous

2019-10-15 19:10:56 UTC  

As to which interpretation to use

2019-10-15 19:11:03 UTC  

Literally I would be hard pressed to find that in any philosophical work or anything by laymen even

2019-10-15 19:11:08 UTC  

One may be more common, but it is also less accessible

2019-10-15 19:11:23 UTC  

Its actually more accessible

2019-10-15 19:11:39 UTC  

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

2019-10-15 19:11:42 UTC  

Google "intrinsic morality"

2019-10-15 19:11:52 UTC  

google intrinsic then google morality

2019-10-15 19:12:09 UTC  

How do I disable pings

2019-10-15 19:12:12 UTC  

Morality in and of itself...

2019-10-15 19:12:29 UTC  

Or natural morality

2019-10-15 19:12:39 UTC  

Essential morality

2019-10-15 19:12:53 UTC  

These are all words also used to refer to an objective morality

2019-10-15 19:13:04 UTC  

Dude, intrinsic morality is clearly a shorthand, with a meaning that isn't a literal combination of those two words

2019-10-15 19:13:25 UTC  

Yes it is a literal combination

2019-10-15 19:13:49 UTC  

That morals are intrinsic to reality rather than not being so

2019-10-15 19:14:13 UTC  

Yeah, intrinsic to reality, not merely intrinsic to 'unspecified'

2019-10-15 19:14:27 UTC  

There's a **big** difference

2019-10-15 19:14:43 UTC  

I choose to read that phrase as involving an omission

2019-10-15 19:15:00 UTC  

So that I can use the familiar meanings of the words involved.

2019-10-15 19:15:02 UTC  

The definition is "naturally" that implies it's reality