/lit/ - Literature

embarrassing

>>2543518
>You see, that's the problem. What is "right?"

The Sandbox. A place where you can build relentlessly without rules, just like the human mind. Is it morally right for a psychopath to be hooked up to a machine where they can virtually kill as many people as they like, or should they be medicated and rehabilitated?

yeah man it's all use-based meaning and language games and shit there's no real problems man just use family resemblance definition lol expand when you need to and contract when necessary there's no private language beetles in boxes klein bottleswe don't have to listen to any asian philosophy whatsoever and philosophy isn't sky-wizardry what a tweest etc etc etc etc

Actually addressing specific, contextual issues in language and wide-open texture is for stupid people and continental philosophers who aren't in solipsistic ivory towers and can't appreciate how language really works like we can amirite

>>1482614
no

>>1482615
>it amounts to you admitting it is a language game and seeing what issues come with that
The issues are unequivocally clear and irreconcilable, not that they needed to be reconciled in the first place, if you understand what a language game is

>You can decide the rules of the game, but you have to make them (or at least the important ones) explicit.
who says?

>>1457316
>>1457323
>parrotting, hypocrisy etc
of course, maybe I should construct a novel ontology, epistemology and ethics every time I post

Pffft... ignoramii

>>1449434