I guess what Smears seems to mean can be explained like this (using words I often employ):
Evaluation of true/false/else is only possible about well defined matter within very specific condition/limitation.
In other words, most of (if not all of) proposition without due definition and condition can be forced to be true/false/else by supplementing lacking definition/condition that would place the proposition in desired specific perspective (evaluation context).
Ex: Santa-Clause (usually humanoid creature with red and white costume) exists (often in shopping malls)(mostly during winter pagan festival shopping period known as Christmas).
True, Nah, I was writing this as you spoke, I’ll post it anyway, despite possible redundancies.
Sometimes the answer too, but not through editing, I don’t know about living with morals, if so, coincidentally I also feel the need to speak out against them. I’m not sure if your in my reality dreams, I’m not even sure if I have any, but if I did, I assure you, you can an autonomous member of them, if in them at all. But, I can’t recall ever trying to make anyone do anything.
Also, I understand now what you were talking about with Santa, I may have made the same analogy, I’m on the same page there, if not the same paragraph. In fact I was to begin with, I just lost my place, but if I were to argue with you I would say that Santa is real because I made that declaration right now as I type, but his reality will no longer be true between midnight and one every morning. Now if were to talk about what his existense means to me, I guess you’d have to do all the talking.
That is a perfectly intelligible English sentence, and it is a proposition that is being entertained by most of the participants in this thread. So, take your insult, and go to another thread.
Of course. And if we say that ‘God’ is a fictional construct in the mind of people… what we mean is that he doesn’t really exist. “Fictional” = doesn’t really exist. A bit sloppy with language, on your part, but no real objections…
The first hand tesimony you are drawing on is only part of the legend. I have never heard of Santa Claus sitting in malls----he is always busy in the North Pole making toys with elves—that’s Santa Claus. Are you sure you’re talking about Santa Claus and not “someone dressed as Santa Claus”?
No insult intended. The sentence is intelligible. But it is patently false if by Santa Claus you mean a jolly elf who flies on a reindeer-driven sleigh and to deliver toys to children all over the world there is no evidence he exists. If by “Santa Claus” you mean a fictional figure with legendary, mythical, historical and folkloric origins than yes, the fictional figure exists as such. None of this is controversial in the slightest.
Concession of what? Read the context. I don’t need to qualify any denial that Santa, fire breathing dragons, and God exist. You are the one who needs to qualify your affirmation that they do exist.
This is how I look at it. It may be sloppy, I’m really not sure, but it makes sense to me. The latter isn’t Santa Claus; it is the concept of Santa Claus. If someone asked you if Santa Claus actually exists, you’d say no [if you were being truthful]. If pressed further, you’d probably say he is imaginary, a concept. He doesn’t exist, but the idea does. Representations of Santa exist, but they don’t refer to anything real.
Any definition is not supposed to account for all phenomena, because if it did, it would be meaningless. A word that applies to everything consequently applies to nothing meaningfully. What’s wrong with your ordinary language English skills? Please, answer.
The moment you say, ‘exists’ applies to any noun, real or imaginary, is the moment you allow that everything exists. And that’s fucking nonsensical, whether a person is on crack or not. What’s wrong with your ordinary language English skills, brethren?
The question becomes, “why do some of our imaginations deserve more serious considerations than others ?”, and it comes down to the seriousness of the roles that such imaginations play balanced against their likelihood . If an imagination acts as a serious explanation (for example), then it should be taken more seriously…at least initially .
I scrolled through volchoks and von River’s arguement, admittedly I didn’t really pay attention anymore than I pay attention to two cats or dogs fighting, but where was the floor being cleaned Chester?
Please explain how the OP is nonsensical. You just said exactly what I said in my OP, and called my OP nonsensical. A little care when reading, please.
Exactly what I’m saying, brethren. I’m just acting on that principle when I exclude ‘exists’ from things that aren’t real. Simple enough, right? —The Queen’s English. You learn about that in Alabama, right?