Message from @sydtko
Discord ID: 662830685542940672
So rats have a patterned chirp/calling
Birds, whales, dolphins
... a vocalization is already an abstract symbol
Chomsky's pretty exclusionary of language
@Deleted User If lack agency, must be exterminated
this ^ seems very problematic for ecological notions. Algae doesn't have agency (normatively) you probably shouldn't be eliminating algae and bacteria
what in the actual fuck
@「SocradeezNuts」✓ᴸᵉᵗ ε<0 What's the topic
poland is pretty not communist
this is emotivism as well
noncog and emotivism gang is just correct <:Smug:643129431434461194>
Is vs as incoherent
Linguistics do not determine reality... except feeding back on it by impacting our understanding of it
Which is why I'm a linguistic trivialist...
You can call X true of false, it changes nothing about X'ness. It changes your sense of X
Metaphysical trivialism... I might be less willing to jump on board
Since I could only explain that with the phenomenon is a output of the contradictory...
Or thing in itself is nothing. X + not X = object...
I am unwilling to commit to that. Since it's mere possibility
Propositions are non physical <:MonkaS:643820797605183488>
dualism is cringe
So it's like saying ... I believe there's a galaxy a thousand light years away
There is a fact of the matter there
Despite not having a referent on hand...
So you're proper or correct in believing it
@LustrousMandrill A meinongian
If you can reference it, it necessarily exists, but not in the same sense
So you equivocating "exist" or "existence"
But I don't particularly care
@Deleted User do you believe there are physical properties but not not physical substances?
@Deleted User How do you know other things are non mental?
Substance is a red herring, the substance is irrelevant if you ask me
Can't know the thing-in-itself, no way to demonstrate things without relations, blah blah
Leads to you shouldn't speak about a substance... aside that there is something
You can call it neutral monism, an idea, physical (any semantic name, via nominalism)
I'm insanely triggered by the disbelief in ...
Holism or unity of all things though
You necessarily must make a trivial statement for axiom...
Like the law of identity
It's a trivial statement
For any and every X, X = X
So it seems like to excise the most semantics, it follows that you say
For any and every X, they are (semantic placeholder) [idea, physical...] yada yada
So that you maintain consistency