|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 9, 2020 12:14:54 GMT
There are only two types of a phrase:
i) it means what it says
ii) it doesn't mean what it says
If this is a case (i), then no philosophy is needed, 'cause anyone know or can know it just by reading it without applying any unknown and non-shared techniques.
If this is a case (ii), then an extra vocabulary is needed. That vocabulary must show us what phrases of (ii) have got translations to the phrases of (i). Briefly, what a certain phrase of (ii) can be written as a certain phrase of (i). When it is done, there's no need of (ii) left, and, in turn, we can get back to case (i).
|
|
lorac
Full Member
Posts: 214 
Likes: 141
|
Post by lorac on Nov 9, 2020 13:38:52 GMT
Quite agree
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 9, 2020 13:45:06 GMT
Lorac, you're welcome to agree loudly :)))
(I mean if to take "quite" as "quiet".)
|
|
lorac
Full Member
Posts: 214
Likes: 141
|
Post by lorac on Nov 9, 2020 17:00:02 GMT
Lorac, you're welcome to agree loudly  )) (I mean if to take "quite" as "quiet".) YES, Love your sense of humour Eugene  |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 11, 2020 19:54:45 GMT
There are only two types of a phrase: i) it means what it says ii) it doesn't mean what it says If this is a case (i), then no philosophy is needed, 'cause anyone know or can know it just by reading it without applying any unknown and non-shared techniques. If this is a case (ii), then an extra vocabulary is needed. That vocabulary must show us what phrases of (ii) have got translations to the phrases of (i). Briefly, what a certain phrase of (ii) can be written as a certain phrase of (i). When it is done, there's no need of (ii) left, and, in turn, we can get back to case (i). There is a third type, it both means and does not mean what it says. An example of this would be the statement: "This is not a sentence." The above can argued where it means what it says as the statement is not a sentence but a picture on a screen. Dually the above does not mean what it states as it is a sentence. The statement both means and does not mean what it says. It is simultaneously meaningful and meaningless. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 11, 2020 21:48:34 GMT
There are only two types of a phrase: i) it means what it says ii) it doesn't mean what it says If this is a case (i), then no philosophy is needed, 'cause anyone know or can know it just by reading it without applying any unknown and non-shared techniques. If this is a case (ii), then an extra vocabulary is needed. That vocabulary must show us what phrases of (ii) have got translations to the phrases of (i). Briefly, what a certain phrase of (ii) can be written as a certain phrase of (i). When it is done, there's no need of (ii) left, and, in turn, we can get back to case (i). There is a third type, it both means and does not mean what it says. An example of this would be the statement: "This is not a sentence." The above can argued where it means what it says as the statement is not a sentence but a picture on a screen. Dually the above does not mean what it states as it is a sentence. The statement both means and does not mean what it says. It is simultaneously meaningful and meaningless. What makes us accept that "both" or a 'whole understanding of a sentence'? While reading or understanding the part what 'means what it says' we can accept it, but when we continue the rest part what 'doesn't mean what it says' we reject it. I don't know, but you add the third component to this scheme with that 'both' or 'simultaneously'. Each 'simultaneously' is an above element, a modal, or an extra one. So, no doubt if you add this element to this scheme, any dualism, pluralism, etc might appear. There is no ambiguous statements, there are just confused people (^_^) |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 11, 2020 23:48:53 GMT
There is a third type, it both means and does not mean what it says. An example of this would be the statement: "This is not a sentence." The above can argued where it means what it says as the statement is not a sentence but a picture on a screen. Dually the above does not mean what it states as it is a sentence. The statement both means and does not mean what it says. It is simultaneously meaningful and meaningless. What makes us accept that "both" or a 'whole understanding of a sentence'? While reading or understanding the part what 'means what it says' we can accept it, but when we continue the rest part what 'doesn't mean what it says' we reject it. I don't know, but you add the third component to this scheme with that 'both' or 'simultaneously'. Each 'simultaneously' is an above element, a modal, or an extra one. So, no doubt if you add this element to this scheme, any dualism, pluralism, etc might appear. There is no ambiguous statements, there are just confused people (^_^) There are statements which are both true and false. |
|
))
