On May 13, 2013, at 10:25 AM, com...@gmail.com wrote: > I'm arguing that if it's "nonsensical and meaningless", it's not truly > "about" anything, like in the nkep CFJ.
That's fair. > I don't see any reason to a priori prefer otherwise unreasonable > interpretations because they don't cause paradoxes. It's somewhat in the > best interests of the game to avoid them, but that's only one factor I see nothing unreasonable about considering messy statements to be meaningless. After all, a self-contradictory definition is invalid, and if a statement doesn't have a valid definition, that seems to make it meaningless. It seems to me like every statement is either true, false, or meaningless, or (for subjective concepts) something in between the three. While "meaningless" seems like the most reasonable interpretation here, "half true and half false" also seems somewhat reasonable, as does "not completely true, nor completely false, nor completely meaningless, but something in between the three". There are some compromises I would not necessarily oppose, like changing "nonsensical and meaningless" to "inaccurate (but not necessarily false)", or to "neither true nor false", or to "equally true and false (but not necessarily meaningful)", or just repealing the rule altogether. —Machiavelli
