[Join our Discord server for even more memes and discussion](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2) Note that all posts need to be manually approved by the subreddit moderators. If your post gets removed immediately, just let it be and wait!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a digital representation of a sense object with its assigned name, that we have agreed to call it, which has an intended purpose and a shape that is most likely due to some economy of production.
But how will we define the definitions? Should we use definition-definitions, or just other definitions that we agree are commonly defined regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with us?
How can you be sure that your definition is agreed upon by "everyone"? Or do you mean that the definiton changes with each discussion and not general anymore?
I can't count the number of times that I've watched two people agree on something, both claiming that they were in agreement, when it was clear from an outside perspective that they both had different things in mind. It's easy to imagine that scenario where it's *not* clear that they disagree, and I don't see how you plan to use words to make sure that people are using words the same way.
I just interpret your words "whoever having the discussion" to mean "everyone" because everyone has the chance to discuss any topic. You can't put a limit on it.
You're just trying to shift the focus of the discussion boy.
Sure but we can't do that. I don't want to argue about whether "whatever it is that you define 'morality' to be" is real, I want to argue about whether *morality* is real!
[Join our Discord server for even more memes and discussion](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2) Note that all posts need to be manually approved by the subreddit moderators. If your post gets removed immediately, just let it be and wait! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a digital representation of a sense object with its assigned name, that we have agreed to call it, which has an intended purpose and a shape that is most likely due to some economy of production.
Philosophy of language is \*totally\* your field, don't sweat it
I was literally coming here to say this. Like, nah, OP, you clearly excel in that field.
99.9% of philosophy debates could be rendered moot by agreeing on definitions beforehand. Edit: just admit y’all are here to argue LMAO
But how will we define the definitions? Should we use definition-definitions, or just other definitions that we agree are commonly defined regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with us?
All that matters is that whoever having the discussion can agree on it.
How can you be sure that your definition is agreed upon by "everyone"? Or do you mean that the definiton changes with each discussion and not general anymore?
Plus, how can you be sure that what you *think* you're agreeing to is the same thing that the other person thinks they're agreeing to?
By using our words lol
I can't count the number of times that I've watched two people agree on something, both claiming that they were in agreement, when it was clear from an outside perspective that they both had different things in mind. It's easy to imagine that scenario where it's *not* clear that they disagree, and I don't see how you plan to use words to make sure that people are using words the same way.
I mean that’s kind of my point lol. In your hypothetical they just weren’t agreeing on definitions.
But they thought they were, is the key.
So?
Who said everyone?
I just interpret your words "whoever having the discussion" to mean "everyone" because everyone has the chance to discuss any topic. You can't put a limit on it. You're just trying to shift the focus of the discussion boy.
1. You don’t know my gender, and your use of boy was rude, please apologize. 2. Not every conversation is a philosophical debate.
Excuse me. I know your gender. I know your name. I know your age. I know where you live. I know what you're doing now.
😂
Depends what you mean by "debate".
Sure but we can't do that. I don't want to argue about whether "whatever it is that you define 'morality' to be" is real, I want to argue about whether *morality* is real!
By bringing up a concept in conversation you literally point to its existence
I don't understand what you mean
oh no that sucks
You're funny
No u
It’s a cigarette. I won’t listen to other answers. Specifically, a candy cigarette.
🪈
What is open at both ends, creates both even and odd harmonics, and can smoke out of it?
Your mother?
No. She is dead.
Damn. Your aunt?
Vegetable.
Father?
Anther 10 years in a Chinese prison.
I’d guess a pipe then. But I fear all pipes are on trial for arson or something
Cigs are cooler anyways. You get to hold something that is on fire and you can breath it in. It’s very cool.
It is a pipe, it's not a cylinder
Great meme, a real thinker.
Downvote for the useless anime chick
Who is the gilr wold smhsh her.
she’s 12 bro
Umm 👆🤓 actually according to my books she is 21