Looks like you cant refute CLD examples of meaninglessness

Does this dress make my ass look big?

eh?

Try presenting the examples in a way that we are more likely to want to read. Nobody wants to read one badly written sentence by you, followed by a very long quotation from somebody else. That is the form that every one of your 'meaninglessness' threads has taken.

The problem is not that we cannot refute CLD's examples. The problem is that you cannot write coherently, so you rely on large sections of CLD's writings, which we simply cannot be arsed to read. Why don't you outline his arguments clearly and concisely? Then maybe we'd take them seriously.

nightrider: elsewhere you've written: "Colin Leslie Dean claims all views end in meaninglessness ie self contradiction." Does that include all views on self-contradiction?

No, you look fine, really.

Re: Looks like you cant refute CLD examples of meaninglessne


Ok. Give us an example.

Ah, we have Dean's paradox then. If all views end in self-contradiction then that includes Dean's view. If Dean's view is self-contradictory then all views can't end in meaninglessness. If Dean's view is not self-contradictory then there is at least one view that does not end in meaninglessness and therefore all views can't end in meaninglessness.

Re: Looks like you cant refute CLD examples of meaninglessne

Why should we care enough to do so? Do you have a point with all of this?

The "point" of all this is that Dean aka nightrider has a neurotic need to foist himself an anybody who will respond to his ramblings no matter what the content of the reply. He will continue to infest this forum (one of a dozen or so) whilst his neurosis is fed.

I would offer a refutation which were cogent, even devastating . . . but, in the end, it would all be meaningless . . . so why bother?

This is how the CLD formula works: Name any subject or author. That subject or author can be shown to be "self-contradictory" and therefore "collapses into meaninglessness".

That assumes, however, that a self-contradictory statement is invalid. But that, in turn, assumes that there is at least one thing that is not self-contradictory: i.e. the notion of invalidity. For if the notion of invalidity is meaningless because it is self-contradictory, then it is immaterial whether something is self-contradictory or not. In other words, self-contradiction would have no bearing on whether a statement is meaningless, because a self-contradictory statement is not necessarily invalid (or, to be more precise, a self-contradictory statement can't be invalid, because "invalidity" is a meaningless concept).

It is, of course, even more mind-boggling to think of the consequences of asserting that the notion of self-contradiction is self-contradictory. As FreeDuck points out, that leads CLD into some insoluble, but apparently unavoidable, paradoxes.

In short, nightrider wants to talk meaningfully about meaninglessness without acknowledging that at least some terms must be objectively meaningful in order to talk at all. That isn't meaningless, that's gibberish.