why throwing around words like "anti-semitism" is fascism

[thomas kyhn rovsing hjoernet]

On 27/02/03 0:41, "prozak at anus.com" <prozak at anus.com> wrote:

> 
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Anyone can call anything truth, but it does not make it so.
>>>>> > >> > 
>>>>> > >> > According to what?
>>> > > 
>>> > > According to logical assessment.
>>> > > 
>> > Your Œlogical assessment¹ depends on a language, right?
> 
> No, it's expressed in a language; algorithms can be coded in many
> languages.
> 
So it does depend on language. Your Œlogic¹ does not operate without
language. Or: it is a language.
> 
>>> > > They continue to preach that individual opinions are each correct,
>>> > > regardless of their contradiction.
>> > 
>> > Sure. Just like Bush.
> 
> Exactly. He's claiming that because the West is more "Democratic"
> than Iraq, we have the right to own nuclear weapons, and they don't.
> 
Your logic here does not appear very logical. Here, one should think that
Iraq would have just as much right as anybody else.

>>>>>>> > >>> > > So says one "point of view"; however, it also hopes to be
"true."
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Since it just vanished in the shambles of paradox,
>>>>>>> > >>> > > 
>>>>> > >> > Quite an easy refutation, no? Perhaps you could explain how you can
>>>>> operate
>>>>> > >> > with a Œtruth concept¹ without criteria that are established in a
>>>>> system of
>>>>> > >> > signification.
>>> > > 
>>> > > This is linguistic confusion here:
>>> > > 
>> > Some universal argument you¹ve got there, Œlinguistic confusion.¹ How,
>> > exactly, do you know that you are not affected by it yourself?
> 
> I'm not attributing linguistic confusion to either party; I'm saying
> that the subtopic has been framed in confusion.
> 
It seems that you do claim to be able to operate with a Œtruth concept¹ that
is not dependent on criteria established in language.
Where did you learn about this Œtruth¹?
> 
>>> > > first, to assert that objective
>>> > > truth doesn't exist is to be fooled by language; language assesses
>>> > > truth, but descriptions are also true in the sense that they to the
>>> > > degree possible accurately portray eventiture in external reality.

Right, and how do you know about Œeveniture in external reality¹? How do you
compare Œeveniture in external reality¹ to assessments in language, if not
by means of language?
> 
>>> > > 2 + 2 = that's correct, an answer is needed. Second, to assert that
>>> > > subjectivism - all truth is within the individual - is anything more
>>> > > than dressed-up absolutism is error.
>> > 
>> > You wrote: Œmaybe it's wisest to stick with what we know, e.g. logical
>> > truth.¹ What do you mean by Œlogical truth¹? Is that logic as in formal
>> > logic?
> 
> Philosophical logic - the term "formal logic" is often used to refer
> to logical systems which function only within, to my mind, their own
> narrow scope of definition.
> 
Does your Œphilosophical logic¹ exist independent of language? 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20030227/8693a35a/attachment.html>