I’d counterargue here. The truth norm isn’t a norm of rationality and it’s not a prescriptive norm but rather a permissive one. Notice that the 2nd objection is basically Fitch’s paradox but with the possibility operator ◊ interpreted as ‘ought’ instead of alethic possibility.

‘ay don u see, ese. he liek kееds, mayne. why he fugin arguing when he liek keeds’ ‘It looks like you’re committing one of the most basic logical fallacies: the ad hominem fallacy.’ ‘what do u mean hombre. he literally liek kееds bro, thas fugin evil’ ‘Meaningless sentence.’

These are the syntactic variables that are found in The Logical Syntax of Language by Rudolf Carnap. I strongly recommend that you familiarise yourself with the variables.

‘Verificationism is self-defeating and Logical Positivism sucks. Why yes, I’m a clueless midwit who has never understood or even read Carnap as well as any of the literature in contemporary academic philosophy. How did you know?’

Midwits think that problems in the philosophy of science don’t actually affect science.

‘“God” is meaningless.’

The notion that the analytic-synthetic distinction is a distinction in degree is another point of convergence between Carnap and Quine. This convergence stops as soon as Carnap speaks of the Principle of Tolerance, however.

‘“Souls” (whatever that means) aren’t a thing, and even if they were, women wouldn’t have them.’

In an inconsistent linguistic system 𝔏 (assuming that the logic of that system is non-paraconsistent), you can logically prove any arbitrary φ. Consequently, all sentences are logical truths, and hence, they’re analytic. This basically causes analyticity in 𝔏 to become vacuous.

‘I would hail Peter van Inwagen if he completely advocated for mereological nihilism instead of his organicist mereology. Hail simples arranged table-wise and simples arranged cat-wise!’

As a result of the advancements that were made in both linguistic philosophy and formal logic (where rigour, clarity, and precision are prioritised), we can observe a kind of progress in philosophy that’s akin to what is seen in science. Our mode of inquiry is more scientific.

Hahahahaha. The stupid Heideggerians tried to desperately vindicate Heidegger’s pseudo-sentence (‘The Nothing nothings’). Of course, they failed. What’s even funnier is that they’re slavishly resenting us (their Anglo-Analytic superiors) by using libtаrdеd insults like ‘bigot’.

They want to try to challenge us, yet they simply fail to realise that we’ll be overcoming ‘Overcoming “Overcoming Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language” Through Logical Analysis of Language’ through logical analysis of language.

Carnap and Nietzsche were both antimetaphysicians, but they’d diverge on the status of language. Carnap seeks a logical syntax in order to eliminate metaphysics; Nietzsche (this interpretation of him, at least) thinks that all linguistic structures have metaphysical assumptions.

Always remember that the only way that humanists can even try to justify ridiculous notions such as ‘humanity’, ‘human rights’, and other nonsense is through metaphysics (and moralism); and as we all know of course, metaphysics is a failure which daft losers attempt to utilise.

Whoever made this slideshow with these lazy low-tier objections that any moron can come up with is such a fuсking midwit. Verificationism seems to be just as commonly misunderstood as Gödel’s incompleteness theorems.

‘lemme tells yous about da mofuggin Good…the soul…uh da Forms…it’s the Absolute Truth…the Demiurge..it’s deep stuff dude, i luv making things up cuz I’m a low IQ brown greek loser, wait did yu know dat souls actually exis-AAAAAAACK’ ‘Heil Wissenschaft!’ ‘Heil Wissenschaft!’

Contrary to what critics of Logical Positivism claim, science does not need a metaphysical notion of causation.

Presuppositionalists such as this idiot like to lazily reassert that knowledge is a transcendental category ad nauseam while asking ‘but do you know that?’ every time that you try to undermine the notion that you need to know a proposition to establish it. It gets boring quickly.

‘The Analytic meta-ethicist acts unethically while simultaneously acknowledging that all ethical statements are meaningless. #MetaMorality’