Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Kenny Davis

Newbies
  • Content Count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kenny Davis

  • Rank
    Novice

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Kenny Davis

    Are contradictions meaningful

    Ok, so im not crazy!!!! Thank you, however this warrants a follow up question. If contradictions are meaningless then can a contradictory statement be false? Consider the following definition and how its used in a proposition. "Boobob is a dead dog who is living" "Boobob whent to the store." The latter sentence many would say false. However if "Boobob" identifies no entity real or imagined then the sentence isn't about anything. So what about it could be false?
  2. I suspect not, though I do see arguments online claiming they are. Here is my reasoning. P1 Words represent concepts. P2 Concepts can be made of more concepts. (dragon=lizard with wings)C1 Therefore if a word purports to represent a combination of many concepts, but those concepts fail to cohere into a new concept then the word fails to represent a concept.For a example of my conclusion: "Buglump" is a Colorless red existing dog that is a cat and doesn't exist. Buglump's concepts fail to cohere and thus do not form a new idea. Unlike wings and lizard, which form the new thought dragon If I am wrong I would ask then for a explanation for why sentences like "Colorless green ideas are currently sleeping furiously" are considered meaningless generally.
  3. Abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists—and that which exists is concrete. How can this be the case? "they are merely man's epistemological method of perceiving that which exists." Seems to be saying that man's epistemological method of perceiving that which exists, doesn't exist. This is so strange that feel like I'm missing something.
  4. The fallacy of pure self-reference occurs when a concept or statement is asserted as referring exclusively to its own object-less referring Example: This statement is true It originates with Dr. Harry Binswanger The problem I see with this fallacy is it seems to not be universally ture. "This sentence has exactly six words" is true while also only referring to itself. I think the key to my misunderstanding of it is the part about "its own objectless referring". However im unsure, is the fallacy of pure self reference actually a thing?
×