Proof of nonexistence of free will

So anything I write on a book will become a law, by being "objectified"?

Would this be non-linguistic enough to you?

Quote:

So anything I write on a book will become a law, by being "objectified"?

No. And that's not what I said either.

Laws are "objectified" concepts. Their persistence in our culture and society depends very much on their physical expression in the form of books and computerfiles.

Quote:

Would this be non-linguistic enough to you?

Wrong again. You cannot read from my statement that I wish a non-linguistic approach. Merely a different one.

I am pointing out that the linguistical approach to this particular issue does not outline a very good basis for presice and meaningful discussion of the subject!

So it's time for you to explain how a law is "objectified," if it is not by being written in books.

So you didn't refer to a specific linguistic approach -- let alone identifying it -- but rather to the linguistic approach -- which I could only identify with approaching things through language.

Well, a law is a non-physical idea.

But the only reason the law can do what it does is that it is recorded physically for our reference. If it wasn't we would have problems knowing at any given time, what is the law and what is not.

Quote:

So it's time for you to explain how a law is "objectified," if it is not by being written in books.

Have I said that it was not by being given physical representation?
And it doesn't follow from this that anything you write down becomes law.

Quote:

So you didn't refer to a specific linguistic approach -- let alone identifying it -- but rather to the linguistic approach -- which I could only identify with approaching things through language.

So if I said I didn't like your attitude, you would understand that as I didn't like the fact that you have any attitude?

I did not write incorrectly. But I can dumb it down if it's too hard to understand.

I wasn't talking about the laws of physics. I was talking about the laws of justice, which are invented and created by humans.
I did not say physical law or natural law, I said law.

Just as I didn't say I rejected the method of linguistic approach when I rejected the specific linguistic approach of existence/non-existence.

I said that the linguistic approach (by context referring to existence/non-existence) doesn't serve to clarify..., or something along those lines.

"The" in that sentence indicates that it is about a specific linguistic approach. If not the sentence would have been: "Linguistic approach doesn't serve to clarify...."

I think you are hell bent on disagreeing here, and it makes you say really stupid things.

the linguistic approach, plain and simple, implies precisely linguistic approach in general

In other words: you said we cannot meaningfully talk about existence or nonexistence, as I just did.

Quote:

the linguistic approach, plain and simple, implies precisely linguistic approach in general

Simply untrue. Show me the proof that this is so.

Quote:

In other words: you said we cannot meaningfully talk about existence or nonexistence, as I just did.

Actually, a lot of what you say is meaningless.

Are you telling me that the expression "the linguistic approach" doesn't mean approaching (something) through language?

Quote:

Are you telling me that the expression "the linguistic approach" doesn't mean approaching (something) through language?

No. But it can also refer to a specific approach of linguistics. Context clarifies which is the case, and if you take the trouble to read through it you will see that the context I used that sentence in makes it clear that I am talking about a specific linguistic approach.

No. I am not trying to solve it! I am pointing out that the linguistical approach to this particular issue does not outline a very good basis for presice and meaningful discussion of the subject!

If you are dead set on believing 2+2=5 there is not a thing anyone in the world can say to convince you otherwise.


Try this:
"I found an old key in a drawer. In a closet I found a chest with a lock on it.
I tried to open the lock, but the key didn't fit."

Now, according to you, this means that there is no key in the world that can possibly open this lock.

Don't you see that the key in this sentence refers to a particular key?

I am pointing out that the linguistical approach to this particular issue does not outline a very good basis for presice and meaningful discussion of the subject!

Just as the linguistic approach in that other sentence refers to a specific linguistic approach.

I do not understand why you are trying so hard to create confusion.

What I don't see is a particular, previously referred linguistic approach to which "the linguistic approach" could possibly refer to in the sentence

The whole problem is: which one, and were it was referred to before?

I am pointing out that the linguistical approach to this particular issue does not outline a very good basis for presice and meaningful discussion of the subject!

Quote:

What I don't see is a particular, previously referred linguistic approach to which "the linguistic approach" could possibly refer to in the sentence

Then look again. The context clearly provides the meaning.

Quote:

The whole problem is: which one, and were it was referred to before?

Yep, that would be one of your problems. You either do not read or you do not comprehend. Either way, the problem is yours, since the information is readily available to anyone who has a basic understanding of english.

I am pointing out that the linguistical approach to this particular issue does not outline a very good basis for presice and meaningful discussion of the subject!

That is the wrong answer.

The correct answer would be: Yes, I see now that I am full of ****. Thank you for taking the time to show it to me, Cyracuz, despite my fierce resistance.

(What you ask for in your last post is provided for you in the post before it. Now give the correct answer please.)

Here's the sentence in question:
Quote:

Quote:

I am pointing out that the linguistical approach to this particular issue does not outline a very good basis for presice and meaningful discussion of the subject!

If you think this means that no linguistic approach can do the job, how do you propose to have presice and meaningful discussion??

Do you think me such an idiot that I would proclaim that language isn't adequate, that we need something entirely different to talk about it? Wouldn't it be logical that I was referring to different words, not no words?

The more you pretend to understand, the more you display how little you make any real attempt to actually understand.

(Sorry guys, for duplicating a previous post, it's just that guigus requires special attention. Kind of hard trying to make someone understand something they are hell bent on misunderstanding)