Is water wet? I see people use this to validate arguments, but have we ever thought deeply about this...

Is water wet? I see people use this to validate arguments, but have we ever thought deeply about this? We can never actually touch water, so it must not be entirely wet...

just kill yourself already

>We can never actually touch water
Water's wetness is not dependent on humans to touch it

Yes it is

What is this bullshit? Wet is an adjective. Water is a now. That is like saying is sun bright?

*noun

Argument still holds your a fucking retard.

False.

>Yes it is
proof

why is touching something necessary to call it wet?

>Is water wet?
Is OP a faggot?

well its easy to say "water is wet by definition"

but that is merely dealing with the meaning of words and not the world itself

anything can be anything if we define it as such

Does this mean traps are both gay and not gay?

...

lol it means if we deal strictly with words then we can define them to mean whatever we want

...

Fuck off with your freshman philosophy 101 shit. If you're going to be an insufferable count, you should define "wet" first, or "is" for that matter.

you are really showing your novelty here newfag

>We can never actually touch water
I don't understand

dont you already know what those words mean?

I am water, there for I can touch water. water blends with water. GTFO. water is wet.

>I am water

Things that can get wet can also be dry. Water cannot be dry, so it cannot be wet.

why cant water be dry?

"because its wet"

why is water wet?

"because it cant be dry"

>refuse to take for granted assumption that water is wet
>takes for granted definition of wet

im not the OP its just strange that you would ask for the definition of such simple words

youre basically doing what the OP is doing

How can wetness be real if the water isn't real?

I'm trying to make a point of how ridiculous it is. In seriousness though you have to define "wet" if you want to prove water is wet.

Definition of wet is something that has water on/in it, so it isn't wet since it is water

Asking if water is wet is like asking if flames are burning

even if we arbitrarily define it as wet it still doesnt prove it is wet, because that is a mere analytic statement that deals with the meaning of words and not the world itself

water is in me, am i wet?

when a single drop of water falls on me, am i wet?

To answer this question we must first ask "what is wet?"

Wetness or the measure of moist is a puzzling question but when looking at water the true question isnt wether or not it wet but actually how moist it is. And ill tell you its almost as moist as


If you dont respond to this comment your mom will die tonight

"Wet" is not a scientific term

It's a term used by people casually to refer to how humid an object feels when touched, or can even vary depending on the person

Stop being pedantic over a fucking casual word

Kys

If water is inside of you and you get inside a body of water are you some kind of fucked up water sandwich?

what is the difference between casual words and scientific terms?

scientific terms are defined by using smaller simpler more casual words after all

>what is the difference between casual words and scientific terms
>scientific terms are defined by using smaller simpler more casual words
>what is the difference between casual words and scientific terms

>baiting this hard

Water can't be wetted its already full. Fucking retards.

well whats the difference then?

all scientific terms are defined by simpler words and those simpler words are defined by even more simpler words

how exactly do we know when we are speaking "scientifically" and when we are speaking "casually"?

If we want to think of wet as slippery, then no water is definitely not wet
As a polar molecule it's actually very sticky and is why shower sex can be harder than it sounds

are the words which define science not "scientific terms"?

how can scientific terms be based upon non scientific terms?

How can words be based upon arbitrary line formations with no apparent design

well thats a difference question, because only the simplest words have that problem and not "scientific terms"

>how exactly do we know when we are speaking "scientifically" and when we are speaking "casually"

>scientific terms are defined by using smaller simpler more casual words

Doesn't matter how much you regress, you'll find that each abstract descriptor shares a base meaning, no matter how high or low you slide on the complexity scale, notwithstanding where and how we assign that meaning, because it is all abstract and that is another tangent entirely. This is bait, most likely, but for the genuinely retarded, here. You know when you are speaking "scientifically", because as you put it, there will exist words that are the result of many smaller words that are more commonly used in informal speech.

Speech that uses simple words that you clearly don't object to, as it goes past your autism.

By virtue of being based upon/"defined by using" smaller simpler more casual words, the "scientific terms" will invoke the same question.

You lack common sense, or are pretending to be retarded.

"Wet" is a subjective descriptor dependent on sensory perception. Anything that feels wet is wet, it's how we perceive the interaction between our skin and a fluid. Stop smoking fucking weed and thinking you're deep, you are about as deep as damp pavement.

Time, space, and matter are all empty and without value. The only terms that work are terms we agree upon as conceited mutant apes who think we matter.

but the meaning of the most basic words cannot be completely subjective because then meaning itself would be subjective

only the most basic words have the "base meaning"

scientific terms are completely defined, thats how we can use them, thats the difference between casual terms and scientific ones

its just that they are defined by words that are undefined because they are so simple

i say basically the same thing to you, meaning at bottom must not be subjective, otherwise no one would be able to speak to each other and there would be no truth

its true we have to agree upon the terms, but we agree upon the simplest terms because they have inherent meaning, not just because we are retarded apes

>inherent meaning
No. They still have the meaning that we give them. I'm all for the established order but saying that the words we invented as a species have a universal meaning is totally arrogant and retarded.

im willing to say thats possible but its scary

if the simplest words have no base meaning then no words have any meaning, since all words are defined by the simplest words

this basically means there is no truth, and that isn't something i'll willing to accept or agree with

Charlie confirmed

>meaning itself would be subjective
Meaning itself is subjective.
>only the most basic words
So like I said, even if you reduce a word to its most base components, the meaning will not change, and if you realize what you've done, you'll see that all the words that depend on the base components do exactly that. They all depend on the base components; the most basic words give rise to the most complex.

This does not rob a complex word of its meaning, nor does it invalidate its meaning because the basic words that constitute it do not both mean the same thing in of themselves.

If you're going to go on about
>scientific terms
don't shitpost the above. Every word has a definition, even the most basic of words, otherwise such a thing would have no discernible meaning and thus not be a word itself.

You're committing a fallacy but I refuse to really go on about committing fallacies. This is surely bait.

If you wanna bitch about the word then whatever. But the water does make interact the body, and it does make the body "wet"

if meaning is subjective, then what is science? all of the indicators of science suddenly become subjective and not objective. do we not have access to science anymore?

the meaning of the word is the word's most basic component, if we reduce the word completely we have its true meaning

the simplest terms are not defined because we have no simpler terms to use to define them

Meaning is subjective in that we have subjectively agreed upon their meaning. That's all we have to go on. Pretty meaningless when you cut the shit.

i disagree, i think meaning is only subjective when a single person has decided its meaning

when the whole group of people decide on something, that is basically objectivity

Science is science, because (we) have collectively agreed upon a definition, "science", and the fact that meaning ultimately is subjective does not mean that our subjective experiences are invalidated by... subjectivity.

You're not capable of looking at this from the right angle. Something tells me you won't for a good long while.

The simplest terms are defined, because if you discern a simple term, if you can note a simple term, then you know what a simple term is, and can specifically denote what specific term you may be looking at. If you cannot, it is most likely not a term. It most likely does not exist. There is nothing beyond "simple".

There is just "simple". Hot is hot. It is nothing less. Just hot.

So you disagree. Don't confuse that with approximations to an absolute truth.

No its basically democracy you faggot and we all know how objectively sound that is ;)

something is scientific not when people agree upon it, but when it is capable of being demonstrated (apodictic)

subjective experience cannot be demonstrated, because it is unique to the person, subjective meaning cannot be demonstrated because it is unique to the person

the simplest terms are "defined" in the sense that we know what they mean, but they aren't "defined" in the sense that we know their definition by way of smaller more simpler words

Something is scientific when it follows the method of discovery, not when it conforms to a body of thought. You've got that right.

Subjective experience can be demonstrated. Guess what you're doing right now? You're using: language. Take 5 minutes to Google "Linguistics". You cannot treat this as a purely philosophical problem and invoke the nature of the scientific method.

Subjective meaning can absolutely be demonstrated, but not by the sharing of exact subjective experience. Only through what must go for objectivity- in ways not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. If something hurts you, and you can still feel temperature and your nerves work, you do not choose to react, you react first, then you deliberate over what just happened.

Pain. There are many words for pain.

The simplest terms are defined in the sense that we know what they mean, and so they are exactly defined in the sense that we know their definition by way of smaller, more simpler words, because those smaller, more simpler words are in turn defined in the sense that we know what they mean, through the demonstration and execution of language as a whole, as human beings.

They can absolutely be defined in the sense that we know their definition by way of smaller, more simpler words. Root words. Common, shared concepts. Pain.

the scientific method is purely philosophical though, science was born from the british empiricists (philsophers)

language is merely an approximation of my experience and not a 1:1 representation of it

there is no necessary causal relationship between the word "pain" and the sensation i get when i cut myself or burn myself

all words are defined by smaller more simpler words, when there are no smaller more simpler words then that word cannot be defined by smaller simpler words

>science was born from the british empiricists
That's not correct.
>language is merely an approximation of my experience
And that's something I'm telling you. Meaning is subjective. How are you meant to convey anything and still have all of your qualia be represented 1:1? Have you ever managed to do this? Philosophically speaking, no one can be identical to you, because in order to be identical to you, they would have to -be- you, and in doing so, there would not exist any other entity, but only you. No duplicates, no differing frames of reference. Just one entity, with agency specific to itself, and nothing more. The closest anyone could get, is to be exactly similar to you. They would occupy different points in space, they would be made up of different matter, all the quantum that makes them up will follow a different trajectory, and most of all, they will not be -you-.

There is no necessary causal relationship between the word "pain" and the sensation you get when you cut yourself. This doesn't change that the only way you can give this sensation meaning, is by invoking the word "pain". In fact, you can also invoke the image of a human in "pain", or anything associated with "pain", to convey "pain".

You keep insisting all words are defined by smaller simpler words. You just described qualia. How are you unable to see that, by invoking sensations that seem wholly intrinsic, you have reduced the concept of things to its most basic parts? Of course the most basic words cannot be defined by smaller, simpler words.

There are none.

>There is nothing beyond "simple"
>Hot is hot
>It is nothing less
>Just hot
>Don't confuse that with approximations to an absolute truth

the idea of using induction to make hypothesis about future events is definitely from the british empiricists, most of modern science comes directly from locke

if meaning is subjective then how could we ever get a 1:1 approximation of anything much less subjective experience? even if we all thought the same thing about words then words may not line up with our subjective experience, and we obviously dont all agree on the meaning of words. and if meaning is subjective then i can just give the sensation (pain) any name i want, because any name is as good as any other name

the only reason i need to give the word meaning is so i can tell you what im talking about, if the matter were entirely subjective then the word wouldnt be needed

You're high as fuck OP

>most of modern science comes directly from locke
>most
The word Phusis should mean something to you, if it doesn't already.

>how could we ever get a 1:1 approximation of anything much less subjective experience
Simple. You're confusing qualia with things not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing "facts", as far as the "facts" can go.
>if the matter were entirely subjective
You typing this says as much. Note that I have never said that it was entirely subjective, but that it was ultimately subjective- because, ultimately, the only reason you need meaning, is to convey the subjectivity of the qualia as best as possible.

>the only reason i need to give the word meaning is so i can tell you what im talking about
Exactly.

Consider the following.

I drop a basketball from my hands while standing on a level porcelain floor. What, do you reason, is the outcome of me dropping a basketball from my hands while standing on a level porcelain floor?

the ancient greeks had no idea of modern science, the idea of all knowledge coming from experience based upon sense perception comes from locke

there can be no facts if there is no objective meaning, any attemt to show a 'fact" would be reduced to a subjective ambiguous statement

you said meaning was entirely subjective, when i make the meaning of the word, its always with someone else in mind, its not entirely subjective, the entire process is started because of other people

Water is not wet, it is water. When water touches something, it becomes wet.

right go up to someone and say "water isnt wet" and see what happens you fucking cuck faggot retard autist

>the idea of all knowledge coming from experience based upon sense perception comes from locke
And that's when I continue to treat this as bait, because if you're going to say that about the ancient greeks, then I'm convinced you don't know anything about them more than you know about Locke.
>you said meaning was entirely subjective
Feel free to find that post.

>when i make the meaning of the word, its always with someone else in mind, its not entirely subjective, the entire process is started because of other people
Sounds like you figured out language, then. The most basic of words will then be subjective in meaning, because you are always using a word with someone else in mind. You aren't beaming qualia into their brains, no.

You're using words of whose meaning the majority has subjectively agreed upon, words you were taught. You're not the whole of every single perspective. You're yours, and yours alone, and so you have to craft your words to better convey meaning to others.

the ancient greeks didnt believe that induction and experience were the soles sources of knowledge, and the believed in things like gods and innate ideas which arent scientific at all

the simplest words aren't subjective, they have inherent meaning because we couldnt have possibly created them from any simpler words

the simplest words are subjective in the sense that we are linked to them by way of subjective experience, but they are objective in the sense that we have to know what they mean "intersubjectivity" otherwise we couldnt speak about anything at all

>the ancient greeks didnt believe that induction and experience were the soles sources of knowledge
So. John Locke got Empiricism from, nobody. Interesting.
>the simplest words aren't subjective
They are if the entire process is started because of other people.
>we couldnt have possibly created them from any simpler words
I agree, you can't infinitely reduce something that is a finite amount of reducible. But there are more simpler concepts than words. So, meaning doesn't lie firmly in words. Hence you having to convey meaning with other people in mind.

Now you get it.

well locke and the rest of the empiricists were the founders of empiricism, they obviously got some of their ideas from older thinkers, but most of what was being written at the time was directed at descartes, who basically revolutionized philosophy

the fact that the other person is the "object" of the process doesnt mean that the whole process is subjective

i never meant to say meaning lies in words, i wanted to say the opposite, since the simplest words can't be defined their meaning must not lie in language, that was my whole point

the real question i was trying to point to was "what is the origin of our knowledge of the most simple words?"

>doesnt mean that the whole process is subjective
I've never said that.
>since the simplest words can't be defined their meaning must not lie in language
Language is more than words. Words are a part of language.

>what is the origin of our knowledge of the most simple words
Nothing in the intellect, without first being in the senses.

Water is a source of wetness, however, but you can't define an object by a word that describes the affect of the object contacting another object. The affect of "wetness" is a result of water in contact with another thing. Therefore water is not technically "wet" but the source of "wetness."
>Water + Water= Water
>Water + Paper= Wet paper

It is like asking if dirt is dirty. When you put dirt on something, it becomes dirty. The affect of dirt contacting another object is what defines "dirty." However, the dirt is not technically "dirty" but the source of "dirtiness."

You can also think of this like math. All math is generally about how numbers affect each other, and the result is the result of the effect.
Think of it like this:
>1 x 1 = 1
>2 x 5 = 10
>Water x Water= Water
>Water x Paper= Wet paper
>Dirt x Dirt= Dirt
>Dirt x Your Mom= Your Dirty Mom

These adjectives exist only as the affect of a noun. That noun cannot affect itself, however.

that doesnt really answer any of my questions

what if you have water proof paper?

The pavement maybe damp , butt. is the water on the pavement also damp. ?

the butt may be damp, but is the butt on the pavement also damp.?

It answers the question
>what is the origin of our knowledge of the most simple words
because the answer lies in subjectivity. Exactly, the answer is the subjective experience. The senses.

Think carefully. How do you obtain knowledge? Haven't you talked a lot about Locke? Something something, tabula rasa.

Then it isn't wet because the water cannot affect the object. If no affect is produced, then you can't use the word.

If you write a sentence with a pencil but there is no lead, you still didn't "write" anything because no affect was produced.

The dampp may be butt, but! is the pavement on the damp also butt. ?

but i dont agree with you in saying that the simplest words are entirely subjective, if subjectivity were all that were at work then we would never get past our own experiences, but we are trying to talk about a universal

it seems to me that kant is the answer here, and his "synthetic a priori"

so if i hand someone a water proof essay submerged in a small plastic tub its not wet?

butts are dank

>60% water

"Wetness" is the state of being covered in water or another saturating liquid. Water is always surrounded by more water, so yes, water is wet.

Unless you have one molecule of h2o, but in that case it would instantly evaporate and become steam, which is not wet but only moist.

>anything can be anything if we define it as such
And that's why this is a stupid fucking discussion. You're arguing over definitions and semantics. There is no "right" answer. It's entirely subjective.

Even if there were a "right" answer, why would anyone give a shit what it is?

water is always surrounded by more water?

my position is that there are objective facts, and that not everything is subjective

why do people value truth?

>but i dont agree with you in saying that the simplest words are entirely subjective
That isn't my stance. I don't think you're reading a lot of these posts.
Press control, then F at the same time on your keyboard. Then type in
>entirely subjective
and make note of the replies in this thread that have that exact phrase.

The butt may be dank, but. Is the shit on the butt also dank. ?

you said "the answer to the origin of the simplest words lies in subjective experience"

i think thats wrong

god i hope so

It is, water is infinite. There is no way to measure how much water is inside a group of water.

I remember this episode, because it's every episode.

so every substance is water?

Wait this is actually a good argument what the fuck

That's true, not everything is subjective. But, not everything is objective either. If you want pure objectivity, you should find a new topic of discussion.

Water is the existence of one of more h2o molecules. Every substance that contains solely h2o is water.

When h2o produces a reaction with other molecules, such as on physical objects we see, it produces the affect known as "wetness."

well that is kinda obvious m80

uhh thats fine but im only interested in the idea "water is always surround by more water"

>you said "the answer to the origin of the simplest words lies in subjective experience"
That does not mean that the simplest words are entirely subjective. I also didn't find that phrase word for word anywhere but this post, and your post.
>Language is more than words
>But there are more simpler concepts than words
>meaning doesn't lie firmly in words
>The most basic of words will then be subjective in meaning
>You're not the whole of every single perspective
>Note that I have never said that it was entirely subjective
>but that it was ultimately subjective
>ultimately, the only reason you need meaning, is to convey the subjectivity of the qualia as best as possible
>when i make the meaning of the word, its always with someone else in mind, its not entirely subjective


If you think
>the answer to the origin of the simplest words lies in subjective experience
is wrong, however, then refer to
>the sensation i get when i cut myself
>Hot is hot

Water isn't wet. Wetness is a description of our experience of water; what happens to us when we come into contact with water in such a way that it impinges on our state of being. We, or our possessions, 'get wet'. Water makes things wet.

Water isn't wet but the ground under it is.

The idea that user meant by "water is always surround by more water," (I'm assuming because I'm not him) is that you will never with your naked eye witness one h20 molecule all by itself. There is always a large group of h20 molecules together (more than we could ever count) whenever we see water. So water (h2o), when we see it, is always surrounded by more water (h2o).

Now please kill yourself.

jeez you said it right here "the answer lies in subjectivity"

i wouldnt call this type of knowledge subjective, since its the same for all people and not unique to the person. knowledge that presupposes experience has to do with the mind itself and not experience or subjectivity

wow ok calm down bill nye. i just thought it was an interesting thing to say, because it is obviously not true