Posted: Mar 18, 2010 5:07 pm
Nocterro wrote:Audley Strange wrote:Or... I can consider it non existent and thus pointless to discuss because to do so is to argue about definitions of things that don't need defined because they don't exist.
Is it not simple?
Let me give you an example. "Freeble" is the description of anothers judgement on a behaviour of another based upon the moral code of the former which the latter knows nothing about and has not considered when conducting behaviour.
Does freeble exist?
How do you know whether X exists, if you don't know what X is?
Assuming your definition is coherent, then yes, at the least the concept of freeble exists.
Because I know what X is "claimed" to be and finding no evidence of it other than as a word and self referential concept treat it as meaningless and since it has no analogue withing reality consider it non-existent.
So are you saying any concept we choose to create which are not borne out by anything other than our choice to consider them real should be considered real?