Philosophical Ramblings Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

All I can say is that you tell it to a Norwegian.

You really want a cookie?

---

Sten is stone in both. Yes or No?
Much like my first name is Welsh but the phonics is seen more often in Irish names.

Since this is about semantics we see how environments shape cultures and how neighboring languages share languages, ideas and idealogies. It's not like Norwegians aren't fellow Nordic people's and on the scale of the world the differentiation between Norwegians and Swedes is only readily visible to those inside those countries.

Cousie Bros are Cousie Bros eh Bro.

Stenbeck is either Swedish or Swedish-influenced Norwegian.

The c doesn't fit with Norwegian.

....And the Norwegian word for stone is "stein". "Sten" is an older spelling, not used today.

I see this thread as having as much to do with Philosophy as a band of marauding “pro bono” proctologists descending on a dixi klo has to do with coprology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Stenbeck is either Swedish or Swedish-influenced Norwegian.

The c doesn't fit with Norwegian.

....And the Norwegian word for stone is "stein". "Sten" is an older spelling, not used today.

---

Also the German word for stone ... the plot thickens ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by totalkimbrough

Also the German word for stone ... the plot thickens ....

---

Obvious nazi link is obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Sten is stone in both. Yes or No?
Much like my first name is Welsh but the phonics is seen more often in Irish names.

Since this is about semantics we see how environments shape cultures and how neighboring languages share languages, ideas and idealogies. It's not like Norwegians aren't fellow Nordic people's and on the scale of the world the differentiation between Norwegians and Swedes is only readily visible to those inside those countries.

Cousie Bros are Cousie Bros eh Bro.

---

Stenbäck means stonecreek in Swedish. We got a bunch of those combine two nature words together surnames.

Beck is an alternative spelling of bäck and is more correct than back. Alternative spellings in surnames are quite common. Beck feels a bit Norwegian, but their spelling is bekk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Stenbäck means stonecreek in Swedish. We got a bunch of those combine two nature words together surnames.

Beck is an alternative spelling of bäck and is more correct than back. Alternative spellings in surnames are quite common. Beck feels a bit Norwegian, but their spelling is bekk.

---

My hunch says that 'bek' is more common in surnames than 'bekk'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I always thought true genius (specially on semantics) is making something incomprehensible be comprehensible.

---

I've never claimed to be a genius. :tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

"Semantics, like mathematics, is not an 'evolved discovery' of some independent external thing or "law" but the outcome of rough cognitive patterns noticing rough cognitive patterns. This limits what we can say about the existence of formal semantics to the concrete; it really exists only in the brains that know of it, in other words. The aforementioned rough patterns are progressively refined and given further layers of abstraction - by these same brains."

I think the part about maths is a fallacy. Semantics are going to be highly culturally linked. Maths will be lightly linked.

---

That's beside the point, isn't it? By the reference to mathematics, I'm merely implying a rejection of the assumption that the abstract is non-physical.

I'm not saying that mathematics is bad or useless. Hell, I'm not even saying that formal semantics is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I think when we combine this with what we learned about the TTBS this basically means that formal semantics are self-conscious.

And this in turn implicates that either we have found another sentient species or humans are formal semantics.

---

I don't see it. Formal semantics only exists in the people that know it.

"That's beside the point, isn't it? By the reference to mathematics, I'm merely implying a rejection of the assumption that the abstract is non-physical."

So you wish to change the definitions of abstract and you wonder why semantics is so fuzzy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I've never claimed to be a genius. :tongue:

---

I never argued against that.

Regardless, would you mind actually explaining your line of thought in a manner that is comprehensible on an international forum?

Quote:

---

So you wish to change the definitions of abstract and you wonder why semantics is so fuzzy.

---

Er, no?

Quote:

---

Regardless, would you mind actually explaining your line of thought in a manner that is comprehensible on an international forum?

---

Your command of English is perfectly sufficient for this thread, as far as I can tell.

It just goes to show, though - formal semantics would predict that you would be able to understand my posts compositionally, from piece-to-piece, word-to-word, phrase-to-phrase, and so-on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I don't see it. Formal semantics only exists in the people that know it.

---

You need to think outside the box.

Quote:

---

You need to think outside the box.

---

So you were mocking me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

So you were mocking me?

---

Welcome to the life of the scholar.

Definition of abstract:
"existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence."

Your thesis:
" I'm merely implying a rejection of the assumption that the abstract is non-physical."

"Existing in thought" - so abstractness is a construction of thought, as opposed to a physical entity or having a physical realization.

But if you assume that thought is physical, then the physicality of abstractness follows automatically.

So I'm not using a different formal sense of the term, but am instead implicitly adopting a different account of the nature of thought.

In other words, even the "concept" of abstractness has a different concrete realization from person to person.

Oh boy, i hope Mont gets drunk again soon and posts further ramblings - I, for one, can't wait. :jumping:

Foresight is the only insight. All else is confabulation. :disappointed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Foresight is the only insight. All else is confabulation. :disappointed:

---

In hindsight you are correct :smoking:

My impression of contemporary feminism is that it is rotten to the core with sociologism and libertarianism, but there is still something of value in it.

The full economic and cultural potential of women can not be realized with current assumptions and expectations in place. Gender roles/valuations between and within genders must be re-examined, but above all must be given space to change so that the "feminine" is not restricted to low-value activities and so that (typically "feminine") low-value activities can be more appreciated reflective of their true contribution.

We must completely rewrite our approach to sexual or intimate violence and coercion. Aside from the impinging of aforementioned gender roles, there are general cultural norms and taboos that contribute to relatively-high levels of violence and "intimate terrorism" by both sexes, even if as the 'weaker sex' women tend to be more vulnerable or come off worse.

I think primarily the above as general guiding principles are what we should take away from the typical feminist agenda.

A specific case-study:

For all the talk of sexual liberation of women, little has occurred but a deepening of willing slavery. Now that females are sanctioned to actively compete for mates, what we see is that women self-objectify and bend their existence ever more towards producing pleasure for men. Leaving aside lingering gender mores that simultaneously penalize aggressive or self-interested women along with disengaged or independent women for the moment, what this means is that women in general subordinate themselves to men as "accessories to penises". On the other end, this manifests as an ever-intensifying 'contest' between men to "hunt" for suitable females, with unworthy females considered beneath interacting with on any level. This complex situation then demeans both men and women and perpetuates a climate in which many experience long-lasting dissatisfaction and anomie for not being able to conform to standards of "love". Furthermore, as hinted at the situation for women increasingly is made to be one of dependence upon men.

The solution is to curtail opposing gender norms in "romance" and foster a climate of cooperation, partnership, and mutual interdependence as socially more just and productive and psychologically more healthy.

Above, I speak very broadly and coarsely out of deference to the nature of the thread. I don't really have much more to say specifically, at least without prompt.

If A mortally wounds B, and it takes B two days to die, once B has died at what point can we say that A became a killer?

Around the time of B's death? Around the time of the wounding? Somewhere in between?

I'm sure there's plenty of work with bearing on this, so links would be fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

If A mortally wounds B, and it takes B two days to die, once B has died at what point can we say that A became a killer?

Around the time of B's death? Around the time of the wounding? Somewhere in between?

I'm sure there's plenty of work with bearing on this, so links would be fine.

---

Time of death. That's because before that, we can't be certain that the wound was in fact lethal. A is a potential killer since the wounding though. You can then retroactivly apply the killer title to the time of the wounding if you want, but the moment of change is still B's death.

That applies even with the case with death is due to neglect from the hospital services, as long as the neglect wasn't worse than no help at all. Realistically forseen consequences and all that.

Morality is purported to be a system for accomplishing "right" goals or undertaking actions that "should" be taken. Actions that are somehow "moral" will ostensibly have relatively high value.

Already the immediate circularity of the concept is apparent. Underlying it is the same incoherent, hazy essentialism associated with "free will", "intentionality", "volition", or "agency".

Similarly, it is a confabulation that has arisen naturally from the functional organization of complex organisms, here attempting to regulate the behavior of not just others, but of themselves and of the very world as well.

No metaphysical account of morality, not even a theogenic model, has developed a concept that could be judged either true or untrue as a complete and contingent idea, due to the fundamental inability of such mythmaking to emerge from the mire of intuition, which hopes as its own branch to stand upon.

Indeed, it is thus that humans have generally been eager, whatever their backgrounds, to affirm the name of this agenerate shell. There has been no need - or perhaps capacity - to think things through and thereby discover that morality has not even achieved the status of a hypothetical, and that furthermore no amount of padding or circumlocution could create - never mind salvage - what is at its core an utter non-entity.

So much for this vexed and vexatious otiosity. :sick:

I understood only half of that, but it sounds good. :creep:

Careful, Erasmus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Morality is purported to be a system for accomplishing "right" goals or undertaking actions that "should" be taken. Actions that are somehow "moral" will ostensibly have relatively high value.

Already the immediate circularity of the concept is apparent. Underlying it is the same incoherent, hazy essentialism associated with "free will", "intentionality", "volition", or "agency".

Similarly, it is a confabulation that has arisen naturally from the functional organization of complex organisms, here attempting to regulate the behavior of not just others, but of themselves and of the very world as well.

No metaphysical account of morality, not even a theogenic model, has developed a concept that could be judged either true or untrue as a complete and contingent idea, due to the fundamental inability of such mythmaking to emerge from the mire of intuition, which hopes as its own branch to stand upon.

Indeed, it is thus that humans have generally been eager, whatever their backgrounds, to affirm the name of this agenerate shell. There has been no need - or perhaps capacity - to think things through and thereby discover that morality has not even achieved the status of a hypothetical, and that furthermore no amount of padding or circumlocution could create - never mind salvage - what is at its core an utter non-entity.

So much for this vexed and vexatious otiosity. :sick:

---

So I don't need to feel guilty for killing my girlfriend's newborn baby cause I didn't want to pay child support?

No, but you don't need not to either.

No man must must, if you will. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

No, but you don't need not to either.

No man must must, if you will. :wink:

---

Simon a ramona wey! It feels good to be liberated from my oppressive Christian morals. Now I'm off to go do whatever I feel like, without getting caught.

A good start, then!