Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 14,522
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I can't make modal logic any easier for you to understand than that.Absurd but extant objects are no less extant objects.One should try to treat absurd objectively.
Oh wait. That would be absurd since absurd is demonstrated absence of objective content.
On nonsense I'm more optimistic since sense is mentioned. So there is some hope since sense is derived from reality.
QED
To claim that absurd extant objects are not extant on account of being absurd (purposeless and bizarre; configured in some arbitrary way), is to invoke a contradiction: it is nonsense to do so.Gobbledygook
language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.
"reams of financial gobbledygook"
Philosophical gobbledygook.
An absurdity wrapped in nonsense.
At some point it's up to you to read with charity to the writer, and if you can't do as much, it just means you are liable to engage in shitty behavior.
An extant absurdity (for instance, a computer with a bizarre configuration) is not made non-existent by it's mere absurdity.
This is trivially true. So, if you're talking about your own statement, you hit the nail on the head.
Accusing others saying sensible, true, and in fact reasonable things of "gobbledygook" is in fact an argument from idiocy.
It is not entirely my job to simplify things if you cannot hold enough abstractions at a time to parse them.