ANSWER. If you need more time to think about it, say so, don't just ignore it like a child.thebestofenergy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 2:49 pm So, for whether suffering and happiness are predictable, quantifiable, and objective, based on empirical evidence, observation, and logic.
Are you thinking about it and having to consider it further, or are you taking the fourth?
Same as a lot of my other questions. It's really putting you not in a good light to just skip them and ignore them. It tells you're either being willfully ignorant to not be proven wrong, or you're just willfully ignorant because you're too lazy.
Either isn't a good thing. Are you going to answer to the rest of my questions, or not?
I'll humor what you said once more, but if you don't address this and keep ignoring things when it most suits you, I'll give you the same treatment by picking what I'll answer to randomly, leaving out the parts that I don't fancy to answer.
So far it seems I understand what I'm talking about far more than you do.Kaz1983 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:43 pmYou don't understand what you're talking about. The reason why I say that is the rules of language (in question) cannot prescribe themselves because that would require them to precede themselves. You see now? A prescription is made in language and therefore the language requires rules. Now do you see that the rules for that language which are spoken the prescription needed to be expressed in another language which needed rules which themselves can only be expressed as a prescription in language?thebestofenergy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 2:49 pm Everything that you just said doesn't counter my point in the slightest.
It actually is a point for why language would be prescriptive.
You just said it yourself. The 'rule' of the 'game'
Rules are prescriptive. It's the reason why they're called rules.
What you're saying makes no sense.
When you create a game, YOU set the rules, not the rules themselves set themselves. Do you think the rules have to precede themselves? No, you just created the game - and it works with the rules.
The rules are prescribed by the creators of the game. In the case of language, they're first prescribed by the people that made the language, and then new additions/changes are prescribed by a concordance that made the new additions/changes, NOT by the rules themselves. The rules obviously don't have agency to prescribe themselves. Rules are a tool to make the game work, a set of regulations, not the acting agents that create rules.
Do you understand that you're trying to make the very definition of prescriptive make no sense, because otherwise you'd be wrong?
Rule:
'one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity.'
What's not clear? The rules don't precede themselves, you're making a logical fallacy.
By that logic, math is a paradox. So is evidence. So is anything.
Because for anything to make sense, the rules and the logic that make it what it is and make it work would have to precede themselves.
What are you even saying.
Bob wants to make a board game. Bob wants there to be a rule in the board game where people have to throw again IF and ONLY IF they throw a number 6 with the first throw of their turn. So, Bob sets that rule.
Now, in the game, if you throw a 6 with your first throw of your turn, you have to throw again. It's prescriptive. It's a rule of the game - set not by the rules themselves, but by Bob.
There is NO paradox. You're creating a paradox where none exists.
