zurew

Sure, but even your framework is compatible with clarification the way I outlined it. The real reason is not your theory of meaning or your metaphysics , the real reason is your preference.

I dont care about you using a specific phrase for a given meaning , Im interested in understanding the meaning behind your sentences and words . Im not interested in forcing my semantics onto you, you can use whatever semantics you want, but I want to understand the meaning behind the semantics you use. Clarification in my view just means specifying the context a given phrased is used in. Dude, we made this big ass tangent about theories of meaning and about metaphysics but at the end of the day, all we seem to relevantly disagree about is communication norms. You could have just said that you are not interested in clarifying your terms, without pushing the convo into unnecessary rabbitholes (theory of meaning and metaphysics). None of the disagreements about metaphysics or about theory of meaning was relevant or necessary for me to understand the fact that you don't want to play by the same communication norms.

Do you have an argument for why God couldn't create a world where any of the things from your list dont exist?

For the sake of the argument I can grant all that underlying metaphysics and your theory of meaning. I don't see how under all of that, clarification is not possible or not useful. Again clarification in my view doesn't mean that you transfer meaning 1:1 exactly as it is. Clarification under your framework where the referent always changes would just mean you outline what you mean by that phrase under your understanding at that given moment. If at t1 by X you mean Y1 , it might be the case that when you reflect on it at t2 you wont be able to describe Y1 but you will describe Y2, but thats fine with me. We dont have such a sophisticated meaning detector (at least I don't) where an infinitely miniscule change in context will competely throw me off from getting a sense what you are trying to refer to. But you desribing Y2 at t2 is still better than you not giving me anything.

Right now all I want to make sure first, is that I track what we actually disagree about when it comes to the concept and utility of clarification. It seems to me that you agree that there is such a thing as me getting you closer to what I mean about a given thing. Do you agree with that? (even if its just slightly closer)

Im not a realist and I don't share your view about clarification. If I just use a very simple theory of meaning where we talk about the sense and reference distinction, then I can say that our sense is different, but I assume that our sense is not so much different that we are incapable to point to a referent . So without being unnecessarily abstract all the time. If I bring up the sun, my assumption is that our sense of the sun will be slightly different, but you will still have an idea what im referring to. You don't need to have the exact same sense as me when I bring that phrase up in order for us to talk about that object. Clarification in this context could play out something like this: I say the sun is hot, and you think by sun I mean a girl who has the name "sun" and who is hot. Then I clarify that Im not talking about a human being, im talking about a celestial object and suddenly you have a much clearer understanding of what I meant by Sun. You still probably don't have the exact same meaning in mind when I bring up the word Sun (since we probably experience that object in slightly different ways), but I still managed to bring you closer. - I would qualify this as clarification.

Im not sure I understand what you are trying to object to rn. What is the proposition or the set of propositions you think we disagree about ? I am willing to get really autisitc about this, because im interested in updating my herusitics and even my theory of meaning. I dont think what I said necessarily presupposes universal meaning.I don't know what "to truly grasp what you mean" exactly means, but surely you don't think that clarification only means that you 1:1 will have the exact same meaning in mind. Clarification can also mean getting slightly closer or a lot closer to what the other interlocutor means. So ironically it might be the case that we mean different things by the phrase "clarification" and thats what partly the issue here. But we can clarify what we mean by clarification and then we can clear up things

Thats all compatible with what I said and I obviously agree with that. All I tried to get across, is that before you want to object to a given thing make sure you understand what you are objecting to and you are not projecting your own meaning onto the phrases and sentences that were expressed by the other person (which is ironically what you did in this specific case). This is why semantic analysis is needed , especially for philosophy, where a given phrase or sentence can be cashed out in many different ways. I don't know what Im assuming. If I talk about concept X and you are objecting to concept Y, then its on you, because you havent done the semantic analysis first to make sure we are on the same page. Or of course, it is possible that I expressed concept X so poorly that it seems that I talk about concept Y, but again, its good to have the herusitic of semantic analysis, especially when it comes to more complicated topics and subjects and its good to assume less and to ask more before you try to make an objection.

You seem to be the only person on this forum who is as obsessed with clarity and relevance as me. It feels like having a surface level understanding of different theories of meaning (specifically refering to semantics) could elevate the productivity of the convos on this forum. Its sad to see sometimes clearly more intelligent or knowledgeable people than me missing the point or simply not using the heruistic of semantic analysis (clarifying the position and making sure both of you have roughly the same meaning in mind) before they want to deliver an objection or criticism.

The answer is that it isn't necessary. There are many possible options we can go through. Some of the options entails the existence of God and others dont. But the existence of God is compatible with the existence of suffering and evil, it is just that not all models of God is compatible with it.

Depends on what we mean by special, but I think I get what you are trying to say - if we take into account as many variables as possible, then no one is special. But in this sepecific case we are focusing on a more narrow set of variables to make an evaluation of either spiritual development or cognitive development.

I don't think thats necessarily an issue, especially once the context is clarified and specified. I think most language (the little I know of) about metaphysics is unnecessarily confusing. Just because something is expressed using a proposition that doesn't mean that the referent which contained within the proposition is itself a proposition. Some issues could possibly come up if the model would be self-referential, but as far as I understand thats not the case.

You don't have to, I kind of get the sense where you are getting at, also I know this is not even relevant to your overall point. I just find it interesting how many ways the meaning of omniscience can be cashed out.

Would you use the 4 ways of knowing model here or you don't find it useful in this specific case? (propositional, procedural, perspectival, participatory) The clearest to me is propositional knowing, the other three are much more blurry when it comes to what they entail.

Do you take Omniscience to mean knowing all true propositions, or do you take it to mean something different?

Death? We would need to disambiguate what you mean by that, but generally speaking I have had my own share of spiritual experiences. But im not sure what any of this has to do with Leo and with my original question and with the problem at hand. Again, having certain experiences that one cant explain or explicate isn't what I have issue with ( although it can be problematic in certain cases, especially when it is used as a justification) , I have issue with taking certain metaphysical positions (where you contextualize those experiences in a certain way) and then not being able to make arguments in favour of it or not being able to defend it. Even If I grant that you two had the same experience from that wouldn't follow that Leo is special, especially given that you said that you don't claim to be special. I don't know, but even if we grant that he has never said anything about it, from that wouldn't follow that he hasnt had any experience and we are yet to establish why having that experience is needed to be categorized as intelligent.

We are not talking about explaining an experience , we are talking about defending metaphysical positions where you contextualize those experiences in a certain way. Do you think it would be impossible to contextualize it under any other metaphysical stance other than what Leo has? Because its not. Thats where he needs to actually make an argument , and thats where he fumbles very hard. Originality in thought in my view indicatates that you probably have above average cognition. Im not sure what makes you think that Leo is above average in any way. Based on what? How do you know that that experience is rare then or something special? Also how do you know that you two had the same experience? Appealing to some vague words when it comes to the content of the experience doesn't really say much. You can project whatever you want on it.

@Vibes Can you name one thing that you think originated from Leo and havent been said before? How do you know that Leo had deep experiences or that he had deeper experiences (whatever that means) compared to other people and gurus? Leo has a track-record of making a bunch of arguments against the weakest possible positions rather than attacking more nuanced and well thought out arguments. Leo also has a track-record of asking questions rather than actually making arguments (as if appealing to incredulity or to the lack of knowledge or lack of answer of his interlocutor would establish any of his points) When it comes to the justification of any of his points about non-metaphysical points he fumbles hard and when it comes to the justification of his own philosophical and metaphysical stances he also fumbles very hard and start to pivot to asking questions rather than actually laying down an argument that stands on its own feet. Nothing is special there, all of that can be done by an average person who spends the same amount of time engaging with philosophy and spirituality.

You don't need above average intelligence to see how Leo is wrong about a given thing. Dont put him on a pedestal, he is not nearly as special as he seems to be.

Sure under certain definitions he could be categorized as one, but under the definition of "he likes to watch" he wouldn't be in that category. And people usually use the latter definition. But regardless all of this is completely irrelevant. People use the cuck point to undermine his points, which is obviously retarded.

Bret "covid vaccines killed 17 million people" Weinstein.

Very important point buddy. Its very much important when it comes to the evaluation of the points he is making.

😂 cant be serious

Is this grounded in a similar kind of argument as what Peterson uses about archetypes? or maybe even the rejection of the fact value distinction?

Could I use only rhetoric to make you change your philosophical positions?