3 ms·
More to the point - if you accept strong verificationism, statements are only meaningful to the extent they constrain expectations as to future experiences. "I
by ikeboy 6y ago
More to the point - if you accept strong verificationism, statements are only meaningful to the extent they constrain expectations as to future experiences. "I will die" does not, because being dead is not an experience. It's a meaningless statement. It's silly to be afraid of a literally incoherent "possibility".
- glitcher 6y ago> being dead is not an experience But getting there certainly can be. "I will die" is not the same as "I will be dead".
- ikeboy 6y agoSure, but the reaction to that should be different - one should focus on access to painkillers and such rather than some kind of incoherent existential dread.
- croissants 6y agoBy this logic, shouldn't a person be indifferent between 1) an accident where they die, and 2) an accident where they and their partner die, since "being dead is not an experience"?
- ikeboy 6y agoYour framing is wrong. Neither of those two textual descriptions represent something that could possibly happen. It's as nonsensical as asking "should you be indifferent between xhskgkrid happening or kwntocusbw happening?" If you take strong verificationism seriously, that is. I can't give the entire theory here, but there are strong arguments for it, and also critiques that I personally don't find compelling.