It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: auto3000
Defining a word does not mean that word is a truth about reality it simply means that is the message that word tries to portray.
This means that the only reference is what sounds reasonable in accordance to how you process logically. Other than logical absolutes themselves, this leaves you only in a state of defining reality by what makes sense to you despite objectively what it is....from a spiritual standpoint this leads to what is called a reprobate mind.
There is not intrinsic definition of the word mammal. Its a word in a language that we have agree means a particular thing.
here is no objective reference.....This type of thinking leads to this....I can only absolutely know what I can determine and there is no objective reference besides what I can determine....This is called total "subjectivity".
Sure the two guys can disagree on what is best for killing prey, but either one or the other is telling the truth.
There is no truth in either position, because their stand points are subjectively based upon logical processes....what's best for killing prey is a subjective discussion.
No, there can be no facts about a specific state of mind...only charged activity that results from it....a person can't validly argue with a person about his or her own state of mind.