|
>>>>No, I was asking you to clarify what you *meant* by the >>term. >>> >>>>To define it, in a logical context, not a colloquial >>context. >>> >>> >>>No, actually you asked me to define it. If your >terminology >>>isn't correct, that's your problem. >> >>Context, muhfucka, context. When you're asked to define >>something within the context of a logical debate, it's >>expected that your definition helps clarify the issues at >>hand. > >Again... tell me how mine didn't. I obviously don't know what >the hell you are talking about.
You defined "truth" as "that which is." "Is" what? "Is" true? If you actually meant "that which is true," then your definition is empty.
A dictionary can depend on a certain colloquialized context, and replace definitions with synonyms. That's why dictionaries aren't used as philosophy textbooks.
>>>>>>>All that was concluded is that existence corresponds, >>>>>>exactly, >>>>>>>to "that which is". >>>>>> >>>>>>That was most certainly not "concluded"! That's where >>you >>>>>>began, and apparently where you remain, but it's been a >>>>>>tautology all along. >>>>> >>>>>how? It can be relavant on a physiological or >metaphysical >>>>>realm, so how can you call it a tautology? >>>> >>>>Jesus Christ! How can you still be arguing about this?! >>>You >>>>defined "truth" as "that which is." That's no different >>>than >>>>saying 1+1=2 because 2=2. >>> >>>No, what I was saying is that 1+1=2 in whatever place 1+1=2 >>>because, at some point, somewhere, 1+1=2, just as we can >>>conclude that something, somewhere, exists. >> >>Hehe, whatever you say. But I thought you Christians >weren't >>allowed to smoke that shit. > >Yeah, that "understanding the English language" shit will fuck >you up.
Apparently by "understanding the English language," you mean "bringing it into direct correspondence with evangelical catchphrases."
>>>>If you're just willing to be naive about the details, go >>>>ahead, you're not alone among the evangelical community. >>>Just >>>>don't turn around and pretend to have a logical >>>justification >>>>for your faith. >>> >>>If a purpose for living isn't logical justification... then >>I >>>concede. >> >>1.) No, it isn't. > >That's your opinion (and, yes, you are absolutely entitled to >it), but you've given me no reason to think otherwise.
Oh, it's only my opinion! It's funny how evangelicals hold such deep hatred for deconstructionism except when they can use it for their own aims.
>All >you've really done on the morality topic is pile on more >questions.
What's so dangerous about questions?
>>2.) You aren't the only one who considers himself to have a >>reason for living. > >I am aware of this, but that is my personal reason for my >faith.
Good for you. But this isn't about you, it's about "truth."
>What's your reason for living?
Afraid I can't be summed up so quickly.
|