You just don't get it. You cling to your propositional logic as an altar boy clings to his rosary beads. You want claim linguistic philosophy and yet a holistic view of language seems to have not occurred to you.
That fallacy is a concept and its associated term is important, for you make a fetish of this concept. You trot it out as a bible-thumper trots out sin.

You pose as the party of common sense, and yet lack the eyes to see how the world really works. You bemoan the irrationality of a fallacious humanity... If only they knew your holy method.

You appeal to math which I have time and time again mocked as something obviously different from word. The linguistic philosophers were at their most naive and superstitious when they tried to make a sort of math out of word.

I compare your attitude to a mediocre chess player who thinks he's Napoleon.

A fact is information or knowledge that corresponds to reality. So says the dictionary. And what knowledge can there be without man?

The practical/theoretical distinction is significant. Or do you force your mother to define her terms when she says she loves you?

Numerous students taking logic have gaped at the teacher opened mouth, receiving their communion.

In philosophy, the party of common sense is often the party of flat-earthers.

What you call plainly false, that truth is determined by individual human beings in relation to one another, is plainly true. And that you don't see that strikes me as humorously superstitious.

Have you never thought about the issue?

Not an argument in the carload. Nothing but bombast.

Where's the argument in this? You are guilty of the "bombast" fallacy which is assuming there is something that transcends rhetoric and bombast.

Where's the argument in this? You are guilty of the "bombast" fallacy which is assuming there is something that transcends rhetoric and bombast.

Zeth...You cannot fit a blade no matter how slim between the thing and the concept of the thing

.Knowledge is judgement... When we have reached a point of judgement on new phenomenon, we have a concept..Concepts are knowledge...

Great, my last post in this thread is still here, but my great thread on "percept" that would have made me famous is gone, and just think, I would have been the envy of many a philosopher too.

grrr

Do we not continually debate with words and all too often neglect the study of what words are? I suggest that linguistic philosophy is first philosophy, for philosophy is made of words. And the limits of word are presumably the limits of philosophy.

I suppose for you only arguments register as intelligible. It might be time for an upgrade on that positronic chip.

Hmm, the adulthood comment doesn't sound like a "logical" argument...

]/QUOTE]

It shouldn't. It isn't an argument. It is a comment.

Do you really think you are the representative of adulthood, merely because of your attachment to the term "logic" and dislike of the term "rhetoric."?

Well, I've been saying that truth is based on persuasion in the broad sense of rhetoric rather than in the narrower sense logic. I don't think humans operate by logic. They are emotional mythological status-seeking beings. <-- opinion.

I think when people call themselves logical and they aren't saying much more than that they find their current opinions self-persuasive.

Zetherin;109702 wrote:

Of course you can. There's a thing, and then there's the concept of that thing. A mighty big sword (bastard sword) could fit between that!

Let me demand a small bit of honesty from you: If you saw a dog, and you had no concept of a dog, what are you seeing???The knowledge/judgement of a thing is inseparable from the thing...Having no concept of dog, you may call the dog thing an animal, but you have fallen back on another concept...In order to see anything apart from its background we must have learned to identify it, and that requires the idea of the thing, the recognition of the form of the thing...Whether we do so consciously or not, we must be able to say, this -is that... Are you some one other than your name??? And could I cut your name from you without blood???

Quote:

This is interesting -- are concepts knowledge? We can have knowledge of concepts, and some concepts may be knowledge, but are you sure that all concepts are knowledge? Locke's idea of concept was "general idea", an abstraction. Can general ideas be false or true? I suppose they can. Does every idea have to be true or false?

Absolutly...Concepts are all forms of classification...They are the means by which we individualize our experience...If we can tell the difference between a cat and a dog, it is not natural, because Piaget found that children might confuse a dog with a cow because each is the same, four legs and a tail...And even there is an example of a drawing of conclusions in our concepts...Notice that when people try to draw conclusion about infinites they may also arrive at a quasi conception of their object, which is no object at all...If we say God, we refer to an infinite that no one has taken the measure of...The same is true of all our moral concepts...So; if Kant said we can only have finite knowledge it is because we can say with some justified certainty what is the nature of a cat when compared to a dog, while we can say nothing true of the nature of God...What do we abstract in our forms???
When we move from the individual to the idea, we take all the shared qualities of the class essential in the individual...If color is not essential it is not abstracted... We accept that cats or dog come in all colors, and so color is essential to all, but specific color is not...We could do the same with human beings, define as human only those who are white, or aryan, and such definitions are essential to violence and injustice...

Yes; forms and ideas must be true or they are tossed on the trash of history... Animism, and naturalism have failed humanity because they could not with truth explain the workings of the world.... Spiritualism is on the same path, with a harder way since we all conceive of ourselves spiritually...Since we recreate our world out of our forms, a correct conception of the natural world is essential...

Quote:

I can judge whatever, but that doesn't mean I'm correct about it. And my judgment would have to be true in order for it to be knowledge, wouldn't it? But I know some of my judgments are wrong, so I wouldn't say all judgments are pieces of knowledge. But if I believed my judgment (which I think you have to, right? can you not believe your own judgment?), and had ample justification for my judgment, and it was true, then it would be knowledge, right? But then we must consider that some, if not many, judgments are preferential. So, how would we evaluate the truth of the matter in these cases?

Concepts, judgments, and knowledge. Interesting.

I never call myself "logical". I hope that I am rational though, which may be what you have in mind. And when I believe I am rational I do not just believe that my current opinions are "self-persuasive". Partly, I think that my beliefs are supported by evidence and reason. I don't know what "truth is based on persuasion" means