When you're using normative are you using it as moral or probabilistic?

It's moral, obvious, in the sense that you make a choice to follow the normative rules of meaning of words. (rule following paradox)
But... the whole point is you can conceive of a thinker that doesn't get the same normative rules

And thus, does not act in accord with the rules. Or acts in opposition to the ruleset (which is its own ruleset)

This is why an appeal to normativity is never compelling

Well... I should not say "never"..

How does pluralism not defend an existence premise?

Unless you're saying a premise of existence is normatively held by all agents?

I am actually having so much cancer, I hate philo jargon

The norms of thought on how they think about their own existence are irrelevant to the brute facts...

@actual_communist_boi he amends the objections in the paper he isnt making the same objection iirc he says that in the next paragraphs.

So... I can break this by merely doing
"I don't exist" --> contraction that demonstrates I exist

So how I state or think about my existence changes nothing substantive to the brute fact (I don't fully believe this btw)

But when facing someone that seems far more skeptical to realist metaphysics ... then I kind of have to assert it with this sort of language

<:REEE:644893026165981184> type slow

Oh no... Methode is running baseline cogito meme <:feelsbadman:643817668394090506>

@sydtko i said epistemic pluralism has been a responce against the epistemic existence premise in the way the CIG formulates it .All the other stuff you are saying arent self defeat arguments that defend the epistemic existenc premise or atleast the ones im reffering to i could dm them to you later if you want but you should stop trying to guess.

I'm assuming you mean companions in guilt = COG? Why is it an O?

```One might object that any formulation of physicalism which utilizes the theory-based conception will be either trivial or false.``` HELL YEA.... Jumping on board that trivialist boat

@Deleted User The belief that math reduces into prop logic is logicism

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logicism/

``` Both versions of logicism—strong and weak—maintain that

All the objects forming the subject matter of those branches of mathematics are logical objects; and
Logic—in some suitably general and powerful sense that the logicist will have to define—is capable of furnishing definitions of the primitive concepts of these branches of mathematics, allowing one to derive the mathematician’s ‘first principles’ therein as results within Logic itself. (The branch of mathematics in question is thereby said to have been reduced to Logic.)
```

Yikes, I don't think I've read all this because it has the zero meme in it

And it would have been great

``` These two forms of neo-Fregean revival of logicism share the following three important features with Frege’s own treatment.

First, the number 0 (zero) is still defined as the number of any empty concept: in particular, as the number of non-self-identical things (formally: #x ¬x = x).

Secondly, once the existence of any natural number n is secured, that of its successor, s(n), is secured by taking s(n) to be the number of all natural numbers from 0 to n, inclusive (Frege’s trick).

Thirdly, the definition of the concept of natural number exploits the notion of the ancestral of the relation of succession: x bears the succession-ancestral relation to y just in case y is at most finitely many steps of succession away from x. (As already made clear, any apparent circularity in this definition, deriving from the adverbial gloss ‘finitely’, turns out, upon closer inspection of the definitions used, to be just that: merely apparent.) The concept “z is a natural number” is then defined as “either 0 is z, or 0 bears the succession-ancestral relation to z”. And this is what allows the neo-Fregean logicist to derive the principle of mathematical induction for the natural numbers. The reader of this survey article will be spared the formal details. ```

Oh god... there's a lot of jargon in that

@Castore ```[5:12 PM] Castore: @actual_communist_boi he amends the objections in the paper he isnt making the same objection iirc he says that in the next paragraphs.```

I know that the first three objections just made me mad

dumb af

@Deleted User what did you just say

@Deleted User since you are low IQ, on average, I expect that you misinterpreted it

I can prove that this is not true deductively:

P1. To be fair, it takes a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty
P2. Methode watches and understands Rick and Morty

Conclusion - By conjunction of P1 and P2, methode has a very high IQ

That's an airtight argument if I've ever seen one

I missed out on one part. Were they saying that I'm lawful evil?

Castle docterine is really cool

I wish I lived in Colorado again because of it

@Sasha if you can get them to join the infantry and you join the infantry and you end up in the same squads maybe they die in a friendly fire accident (in CoD ofc). Just saying

@Deleted User anytime a women enters voice

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/265256381437706240/650820158390009856/squadW.mp4

can we getta squadhands in the chat

@Dodger101 you are dumb

@Deleted User also what is your race realism shit