but what this have to do with you going to the bathroom to sit on the toilet and think about my shit (literally)? Are you some kind of freak? Scat fetishist?

But what does that have to do with you reviewing my monumental thoughts (your words) on the toilet? Who’s really full of shit?

Logical positivism was the high point of metaphysics? LMAO! YOu keep revealing your ignorance.

BTW, I checked out the Wikipedia section and , I’d swear, you must have written it!

I checked out the Wikipedia section and , I’d swear, you must have written it!

You don’t like python, old timer? Old man and the sea that he’s older than…you don’t care for that? Shucks. Everybody knows you don’t vote–you think it’s a “union” conspiracy.

You so deserve to win that crown.

OH, and yep, the guy’s adorable.

Wow, you read wikipedia, apparently. I said start with the tractatus (it’s still enormously influential). START. You haven’t read anything he’s written (from on certainty to the philosophical investigations to another masterpiece which you deride because you’re an illiterate slob…the tractatus…Anyone who is remotely interested in philosophy needs to read the tractatus. It’s a must. Not you, though…you stick to wikipedia).

Read the Red and Green books; and anything that doesn’t fuck with metaphysical crackpottery. I guess that qualifies you as the booby until you study up. Till then you are clearly out of the running.

To clarify. To be logical is just to be meaningful. Natural language is not an artificial language like a logic; and thus does not need to be logical at all. A grammatically structured sentence can be meaningless. No sentence that is logical can, at the same time be meaningless. If it’s meaningless, then it nonetheless CANNOT make sense.

The rest of your idiotic ramblings don’t make any sense. You’ve never Read Russell or Wittgenstein (I can say this with complete confidence), so you don’t understand what they wrote and where they disagree (or that I disagree with both on many important points). You should read Wittgenstein. He was very smart. Start with the tractatus… someone as stupid as you won’t understand it. You need a tutorial. I suggest Max Black’s guide. It’s old, but good. YOu won’t understand it then, either…so don’t read it wittgenstein; it’d be a waste.

You’ve gotten got stuck someplace back with Russellian metaphysics; a long time ago before Witgenstein.
It seems strange that you can say it with confidence, not feeling like an idiot and yet claim that the statement is meaningless.

Didn’t I have to call you out on this one already in a previous post? And even though you are trying your best to pretend not to acknowledge my grinding your ass, (I know you love it!) I can hear your stubby little teeth grinding together because you’re just ACHING to post a comeback, but as always, your balls aren’t big enough to do the job. And yet,you seem to have a lot of “fans” here of the same opinion!

SMOOCHIES!

You idiot! Grammar and logic are distinct. Grammar are conventional rules that govern proper from improper use of words. Logic is how we think. While you can disagree with a rule of grammar (ending a sentence with a preposition) to do so with a law of logic is literally saying nothing meaningful.

I got the law of contradiction from him saying it is the case and not the case at the same time–and from you, too.

YOu’re confusing instrumentalism with logic, and really basic logic at that. ANd it’s annoying. What does “nevermind” mean in that context? Well, according to fat n’ old, it means “to not care” or, expressed with a pronoun “I don’t care”. Well, if you’re going to argue with me, you need to show me how “I don’t care” can’t be substituted for nevermind IN THAT CONTEXT, and then, how I don’t care doesn’t mean (more or less) “it is not the case that I care” in ordinary language.

Yes, it’s terrible. But it’s in descriptive dictionaries. Prescriptive dictionaries are dying out, it seems.

English is my third language, and even I know that “Irregardless” is a nonsense word.