This from someone who is trying to tell the rest of us about
Wittgenstein? Tell us, DHR, where do your ideas about him
come from? (As if I couldn't guess.) Have you the first clue
about what "playing a language game" means? (DHR: No,
but I know someone who does! :-) (Oops, subst. "did"!)
>If not, where are you getting the concept
>that
>words need to adhere to dictionary definitions?
This has already been explained. Meanings are obviously
context-dependent. Equally obviously, there has to be some
agreement on meanings otherwise we can't communicate.
Dictionaries give the consensus meanings. What's your
problem? (Guess: adhering to a simplistic ideology?)
>>Buddhists ask such questions all the time. You should find out more
>>about them, if you want to criticise them, rather than relying on
>>theory,
>>Objectivist or otherwise.
>
>If Buddhists ask such questions, why would they take contradictory
>positions
>like, not believing in a 'self', yet claiming there is a such thing as
>intellectual "property".
I don't claim to be Enlightened already. Takes time, you know.
>When you make contradictory statements like that,
>I
>don't know what to make of them regardless of theory, Objectivist or
>otherwise.
Outside of Enlightened perfection, only contrived systems are
entirely consistent, and they're all unrealistic, or at least
incomplete in the sense that there's something they fail to
account for. See Godel.
Robin