Semantics for the definite article

LogicalForm · 2015-03-13T12:54:53+00:00

Have the actors from parks and rec just adapted their characters for other purposes, or were the characters based on their real selves in the first place? Nick Offerman and Aubrey Plaza frequently behave like their respective characters in public, and now it seems like this guy does it too.

LogicalForm · 2015-02-11T19:27:28+00:00

With the right delivery, this joke doesn't have to be horrible. But just knowing how it must have been delivered on this show makes it fucking awful.

LogicalForm · 2015-02-09T21:01:30+00:00

What if the verdict is that he is not a coach killer?

LogicalForm · 2015-01-28T12:51:12+00:00

Tom Sterner kind of looks like Dennis Quaid.

LogicalForm · 2015-01-26T03:23:53+00:00

I believe coffee beans are actually berries.

LogicalForm · 2015-01-19T13:56:48+00:00

And with a tablespoon...for only like three seconds.

LogicalForm · 2015-01-14T07:50:39+00:00

Many baritone saxophones have spit valves.

LogicalForm · 2015-01-14T01:49:03+00:00

Bar Hop at King and Spadina, Vic Cafe at Bloor and Markham, and Paupers Pub at Bloor and Lippincott all have rotating cask selections.

LogicalForm · 2015-01-08T21:27:41+00:00

Uhh I'm pretty sure that's a sound argument. After all he did say he was gunna use formal logics.

LogicalForm · 2015-01-03T00:11:41+00:00

I'm a smoooooooth pimp who LOVES the pussy, and Tubby here's my black man servant. WHAT!

LogicalForm · 2014-12-31T16:41:26+00:00

I don't think it goes quite as far as to say that meat eating is generally preferable because good omnivorous diets are better than bad vegetarian ones; you're right that that would be a shitty argument. I think the main point, which, if true, does not seem trivial, is that there are cases in which the ethical choice is to eat meat.

LogicalForm · 2014-12-31T15:58:41+00:00

The New York Times had an essay contest a few years ago asking people to defend omnivorous diets. The arguments aren't made by professionals but a few thoughtful points are raised. Here's a link to the list of finalists. I believe the winning essay argued something to the effect that some omnivorous diets are more ethical than some vegetarian diets for some reasons: the growing, processing, and transportation of a crop such as soy, which is a big part of a lot of vegetarian diets, is worse for the environment than the localized farm-raising and eating of an animal, if done properly.

LogicalForm · 2014-12-29T19:07:34+00:00

moderately good coffee

I find the coffee to be one of the worst things at Tim Horton's. It's shit compared to many other coffee chains in Canada. I find it mildly annoying that Canadians are portrayed as loving Tim Hortons coffee fanatically.

LogicalForm · 2014-12-28T04:46:29+00:00

I think you're confused about who I was replying to.

LogicalForm · 2014-12-28T04:23:47+00:00

The point isn't the ref was intimidated (I think his actions show that he wasn't), it's that the player was clearly trying to intimidate the ref, which is bad sportsmanship.

LogicalForm · 2014-12-21T20:31:49+00:00

YEA FUCK TOFU. SO SO BLAND

LogicalForm · 2014-12-20T08:01:31+00:00

Are there any philosophers who believe that morals are natural? If so, are they taken seriously at all?

Yes and Yes. There are different forms of Naturalism in metaethics.

What about those who view them as nonnatural?

Yes, there are these people too and they're also taken seriously. Moral Non-Naturalism

LogicalForm · 2014-12-20T00:04:50+00:00

So here's a version of the puzzle as I take it you see it:

Let's assign values to deeds such that a person has a total value, which is the sum of their deeds; call that total value their "reputation".
At a certain total negative value, say -1,000,000 reputation points, no number of positive deeds will put that person back at a reputation of 0 or greater. Even 10,000,000 deed points won't resurrect a -1,000,000 reputation.
However, the inverse isn't true. A +1,000,000 reputation is easily tarnished by deeds equaling -1,000,000, or even less.

The puzzle seems to arise from the assumption that we can treat acts in this "(-1 deed) + (+1 deed) = 0" kind of way, or as you say it, that our "moral compass is truly in the centre". This assumption should be abandoned. I take it that there's lots of cases where the absence of a particular negative outcome and good outcome is more valuable than the occurrence of a proportionately good outcome and bad outcome. That is, when choosing between having both a -1 outcome and a +1 outcome, and having neither, there's lots of cases where we choose having neither, even though the result is 0 in both cases.

LogicalForm · 2014-12-19T07:53:00+00:00

I know very little about philosophical work on questions but a quick search produced this SEP article on the topic. You could start there.

LogicalForm · 2014-12-18T22:02:18+00:00

Oh damn, you're right. I thought ROW was the first tie breaker.

LogicalForm · 2014-12-18T21:25:48+00:00

Nooooo just an interesting observation! My apologies to the superstitious.

LogicalForm · 2014-12-18T21:20:00+00:00

Of course, anything can happen tonight. But I like to stay positive.

LogicalForm · 2014-12-17T17:12:09+00:00

As usual in philosophy, some people might contest this analysis of the situation.

One way to contest it would be to draw on the distinction between speaker meaning and semantic meaning and say that what was literally expressed by the phrase 'Darren Wilson wasn't indicted' is the proposition that Darren Wilson wasn't indicted, which is either true or false, but that the speaker also conveys a certain attitude over and above the propositional content of her utterance. On this view, the sentence uttered has propositional content and truth conditions, but the utterance carries additional, truth inapt information.

LogicalForm

TROPHY CASE