Austin

You're conflating a syntactic analysis of an argument with a semantic one.

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

Hail Logic, bitсh!

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

‘Wittgensteinian autism won, though.’

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

Erm, the proper title of Stirner’s book is actually ‘The Unique and Its Property’.

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

He’s an analytic modal logician, ok?

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

‘We need to perform an analysis on this linguistic expression in order to determine if it’s another form of meaningless metaphysical gibberish that needs to be eliminated.’

The analysis in question:

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

They just let anyone publish anything nowadays.

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

‘Numbers exist, and so does God, and so do the objective gastronomic values, and so do the objective moral facts about not drinking out of purple cups, and so does the life force, and so do photons, and so do beliefs, and so does the ineffable essence of the cosmic muffin.’

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

To even call Carnap a metaphysician is so blatantly revisionary.

On that matter, there’s this somewhat common trope among certain philosophers where they basically claim that ‘the anti-metaphysician is just a rivalrous metaphysician with a broader theory’, but that’s ridiculous.

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

‘Hitlеr’s capability of fully utilising his infinitely regressive meta-consciousness (which only Аrуаns possess) was what led to his triumph, by the way.’

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

‘We need to perform an analysis on this linguistic expression in order to determine if it’s another form of meaningless metaphysical gibberish that needs to be eliminated.’

The analysis in question:

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

The Tractatus seems to reject the possibility of attributing ‘necessary existence’ to anything, and Wittgenstein rejects that there could be propositions asserting the existence of Tractarian objects (see TLP 4.1272).

Here’s how he interprets his former views in PI (section 50).

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

Rеtаrdеd.

‘Is there a necessary existence’ is a meaningless pseudo-question that yields reification while conflating de re with de dicto modality, and the syntactic structure of the pseudo-question also leads to a conflation of both first-order and second-order quantification.

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

Rеtаrdеd.

‘Is there a necessary existence’ is a meaningless pseudo-question that yields reification while conflating de re with de dicto modality, and the syntactic structure of the pseudo-question also leads to a conflation of both first-order and second-order quantification.

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

‘The eternal Light… the Becoming… the Truth…’

[Adein's Hut ✨ @oulis0]

Fichte:

"We ourselves are this eternal Light, which becomes visible in us as forming and generating the world always continuously in [...] its formation... The art of the Wissenschaftslehre is to penetrate into this Light..., the eternal Becoming, since this is the Truth.''

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

#LogicGod

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

Colour-blind centrists like this moron are utterly contemptable. I hate them.

‘Actually, that isn't a dog. We're all just life. It's a fellow living object. Give it rights. Give that cockroach rights, it's just a fellow lifeform. I'm the same as clothes. Give clothes rights.’

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

👇🏻 This.

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

‘I don’t think that they actually said any of that…’

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

‘ТND… but meta.’

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

Secular moralists appeal to mystical woo when they try to show that ‘objective moral facts exist’ more than theists do when they try to show that ‘God exists’.

They never realise that they sound extremely deluded when they try to cloak ‘objective moral facts’ with rationality.

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

Rеtаrds like Drago don't read any of the academic literature on meta-ethics.

The notion that ‘God is needed for morality’ is untenable, and academic philosophers like me don't take it seriously.

Nevertheless, I despise secular moralists more than I despise theistic moralists.

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

Here's a new syllogism refuting atheism:

1. [Meaningless moralfаg sentence]
2. The atheistic worldview cannot establish meaningless moralfag sentences.
3. Therefore, the atheistic worldview cannot be true.

#DivineLogic #HeavenlyHandwaving

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

Here's a new syllogism refuting atheism:

1. [Meaningless moralfаg sentence]
2. The atheistic worldview cannot establish meaningless moralfag sentences.
3. Therefore, the atheistic worldview cannot be true.

#DivineLogic #HeavenlyHandwaving

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

An issue with grounding is that its hyperintensional semantics leads it to collapse into triviality, since any metaphysical explanatory power that’s attributed to grounding can be rephrased in terms of the explanandum and explanans without invoking a separate grounding relation.

[Austin @AlethicLogician]

Anime girls supervene on Carnap iff there can be no difference regarding anime girls without a difference regarding Carnap.

Anime girls SUPERDUPERVENE on Carnap iff anime girls supervene on Carnap AND that fact is grounded.

(But we’re still eliminating metaphysics, anyway)