Oh no...

Why are dumpsters so against verificationism? ... because you can't verify the verification principle? 😴

This meme needs to die

There are circles at foundations..

is he like working out. Is this Der Einzige

I have to work out while I talk

It's be an endless shitshow of justification

You're just asking reductio of "I believe I believe"

I believe I have beliefs 😴

I don't believe methode when he says he doesn't believe in laws but ok

Physicalist = phenom is physical so you haven't escaped

no one reads this dude dont bother typing here

I'm gonna need a definition of philosophy that escapes tautology
The same tautology that science suffers from

Morons that don't read smdh

Typing is more permanent, and you can see edits

voice conversation, most people are tabbed out

IE: Harder to equivocate

Or at the very least, you can see that equivocation is happening, much easier...
Not that I care about equivocation

Because language is literally that

Word for this
X for that

i dunno why you are trying to debate this dude i am just saying that no one is going to read what you are typing here so its best for you to wait until you can talk

If you dispense of equivocation, you've dispensed of equivalences of object to symbol

You're reading it <:Smug:643129431434461194>

Rationality is investigating your internal world of memories / stored sense data

im glancing at best

I don't know if you guys like IdeasInhat, he's kind of a douche but
https://ideasinhat.com/2019/01/01/the-difference-between-philosophy-and-science/

This meme is basically what I agree with, it's a labeling error to distinguish the two

Linguistics are all trivial

I'm not a metaphysical or ontological trivialist though

That's ... too far

Liars Paradox
Modal realism
Characterization principle
And Via PSR

The LEM is merely a principle so it's neither true nor false

Everytime you use a deduction, you're also using the principle or Law of excluded middle

You're using Bayesian logic

All lemons are yellow (with a truth value of .99, false value of 01) <----- both true and false

If the laws themselves are not true, then you ought not even believe the laws of logic

<:nope:643129502746017793>

When you correct Actual Communist Boy on meaning of words, you're inferring there's a ruleset of meanings of words
^ see rule following paradox

And when you're on equivalent ground for discourse, his definition is just as equal or true as yours

So you only want common ground on a definition

Pragmatic maxim or pragmatic theory of truth is that which is useful is true