|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
where did quintessential come from, sounds like some fifth element trippy shit.
Quintessential
From the medieval Latin, "Quinta Essentia," or "the Fifth Essence" -- what we would now call, "The Fifth Element." That which is quintessential is of the fifth element that would come after the four classical elements (earth, wind, rain, fire). The OED summarizes this original sense best, "The `fifth essence' of ancient and medieval philosophy, supposed to be the substance of which the heavenly bodies were composed, and to be actually latent in all things, the extraction of it by distillation or other methods being one of the great objects of alchemy."
"Quintessential" began life as an alchemical term, the Quinta Essentia, the fifth that arises from the four elements you mention in your etymology. The Fifth was thought to be the fabled Philosopher's Stone which the alchemists sought, a Stone that could cure illness, extend life, and turn base metals into gold and silver. How to combine the four elements to make the Fifth was the great problem of alchemy (from the Arabic "al-kimiya").
|
On February 14 2009 02:42 zulu_nation8 wrote:
also feel free to define what the quintessential form of religion is lol
A counter-argument to a statement would be support for the opposite of the statement, being that religion is beneficial to humanity in modern times. Quintessential form is the form, word for word, preached in Church/Mosque/Temple, with the implication that the followers are expected to follow/believe in the preaching verbatim (I provided a few examples).
|
quin⋅tes⋅sence
/kwɪnˈtɛsəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kwin-tes-uhns] –noun
1. the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
quintessential
adjective
representing the perfect example of a class or quality
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Read books. Learn n' shit.
|
How can i argue for the opposite of your statement when I don't even know how you arrived at your statement in the first place?
|
On February 14 2009 03:00 fanatacist wrote:Show nested quote +quin⋅tes⋅sence
/kwɪnˈtɛsəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kwin-tes-uhns] –noun
1. the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
quintessential
adjective
representing the perfect example of a class or quality
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. Read books. Learn n' shit.
Exactly, you should now realize what a horrible definition it is that you used.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
anyone know what schopenhauer's on about with the fourfold root business, it sounds trippy
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
Inspired by Aristotle's doctrine of the four basic kinds of explanatory reason or four [be]causes (Physics, Book II, Chapter 3), Schopenhauer defined four kinds of necessary connection that arise within the context of seeking explanations, and he correspondingly identified four independent kinds of objects in reference to which explanations can be given:
Material things
Abstract concepts
Mathematical and Geometrical constructions
Psychologically-Motivating forces
Corresponding in parallel to these four kinds of objects, Schopenhauer respectively linked four different kinds of reasoning. Within his terminology, he associated material things with reasoning in terms of cause and effect; abstract concepts with reasoning in terms of logic; mathematical and geometrical constructions with reasoning in reference to numbers and spaces; and motivating forces with reasoning in reference to intentions, or what he called moral reasoning. In sum, he identified the general root of the principle of sufficient reason as the subject-object distinction, and the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason as the specification of four different kinds of objects for which we can seek explanations, in association with the four independent intellectual paths along which such explanations can be given, depending upon the different kinds of objects involved.
doesn't sound half bad. although i believe it conflates conceptual pluralism in explanations with distinct kinds of logical spaces, like 1 and 2/3
|
On February 14 2009 03:11 zulu_nation8 wrote:
How can i argue for the opposite of your statement when I don't even know how you arrived at your statement in the first place?
You need support to argue a statement? Don't be silly.
The sky is green.
I don't tell you how I arrived at said conclusion but you can sure as hell argue it.
Seriously lol.
|
On February 14 2009 03:13 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2009 03:00 fanatacist wrote:quin⋅tes⋅sence
/kwɪnˈtɛsəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kwin-tes-uhns] –noun
1. the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
quintessential
adjective
representing the perfect example of a class or quality
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. Read books. Learn n' shit. Exactly, you should now realize what a horrible definition it is that you used.
Uh, you are going to teach me English after that sentence? I thought this was a serious thread, not a joke thread.
Anyways, deciphering your poor excuse for sentence structure, let's examine the following:
My goal: describe a state of ANY religion in it's purest form, without the individual (from person to person) differences in belief and faith.
Word of choice: quintessential
Definition: "representing the perfect example of a class or quality"
Does it fit?: religion in its purest form = perfect example of religion
QED: I am right, you are wrong, learn English and read books, thank you.
|
On February 14 2009 05:54 fanatacist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2009 03:11 zulu_nation8 wrote:
How can i argue for the opposite of your statement when I don't even know how you arrived at your statement in the first place?
You need support to argue a statement? Don't be silly. The sky is green. I don't tell you how I arrived at said conclusion but you can sure as hell argue it. Seriously lol.
LOL THEN IT WOULDNT BE CALLED ARGUING YOU DUMB FUCK
|
On February 14 2009 05:58 fanatacist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2009 03:13 zulu_nation8 wrote:On February 14 2009 03:00 fanatacist wrote:quin⋅tes⋅sence
/kwɪnˈtɛsəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kwin-tes-uhns] –noun
1. the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
quintessential
adjective
representing the perfect example of a class or quality
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. Read books. Learn n' shit. Exactly, you should now realize what a horrible definition it is that you used. Uh, you are going to teach me English after that sentence? I thought this was a serious thread, not a joke thread. Anyways, deciphering your poor excuse for sentence structure, let's examine the following: My goal: describe a state of ANY religion in it's purest form, without the individual (from person to person) differences in belief and faith. Word of choice: quintessential Definition: "representing the perfect example of a class or quality" Does it fit?: religion in its purest form = perfect example of religion QED: I am right, you are wrong, learn English and read books, thank you.
OH IM SORRY I THOUGHT THIS WAS A JOKE THREAD. There's nothing wrong with my sentence, on the other hand everything you have said have been made of retard. The word of choice you're looking for is clearly fundamentalist and not quintessential LOL, LEARN ENGLISH AND READ BOOKS DUMBASS.
|
FANATICIST YOUR MOM IS UGLY, PROVIDE A COUNTERARGUMENT TO MY STATEMENT PLEASE
|
On February 14 2009 06:00 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2009 05:54 fanatacist wrote:On February 14 2009 03:11 zulu_nation8 wrote:
How can i argue for the opposite of your statement when I don't even know how you arrived at your statement in the first place?
You need support to argue a statement? Don't be silly. The sky is green. I don't tell you how I arrived at said conclusion but you can sure as hell argue it. Seriously lol. LOL THEN IT WOULDNT BE CALLED ARGUING YOU DUMB FUCK
LOL YOU ARGUE THE STATEMENT I COUNTER YOUR ARGUMENTS DIPSHIT
ROOOOOOOOOFL HEWWO
|
On February 14 2009 06:05 zulu_nation8 wrote:
FANATICIST YOUR MOM IS UGLY, PROVIDE A COUNTERARGUMENT TO MY STATEMENT PLEASE
BEAUTY IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER. HOWEVER YOU HAVE YET TO SEE MY MOTHER, GG NO RE~
PS CAPS LOCK BREAK?
|
On February 14 2009 06:04 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2009 05:58 fanatacist wrote:On February 14 2009 03:13 zulu_nation8 wrote:On February 14 2009 03:00 fanatacist wrote:quin⋅tes⋅sence
/kwɪnˈtɛsəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kwin-tes-uhns] –noun
1. the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
quintessential
adjective
representing the perfect example of a class or quality
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. Read books. Learn n' shit. Exactly, you should now realize what a horrible definition it is that you used. Uh, you are going to teach me English after that sentence? I thought this was a serious thread, not a joke thread. Anyways, deciphering your poor excuse for sentence structure, let's examine the following: My goal: describe a state of ANY religion in it's purest form, without the individual (from person to person) differences in belief and faith. Word of choice: quintessential Definition: "representing the perfect example of a class or quality" Does it fit?: religion in its purest form = perfect example of religion QED: I am right, you are wrong, learn English and read books, thank you. OH IM SORRY I THOUGHT THIS WAS A JOKE THREAD. There's nothing wrong with my sentence, on the other hand everything you have said have been made of retard. The word of choice you're looking for is clearly fundamentalist and not quintessential LOL, LEARN ENGLISH AND READ BOOKS DUMBASS.
"What a horrible definition it is that you used"?
Even on the off chance that it is grammatically correct, it sounds like you were playing with magnetized words on a refrigerator and came up with some cocktail of a sentence that NO ONE but the fobbiest of fobs would say out loud. Want to hear an alternative to make it obvious how much better it could be?
"Exactly, you should now realize what a horrible definition you used."
Hey look I took out 3 words and made the sentence better while still retaining information, seems like someone isn't very ARTICULATE, which usually implies their LACK OF MASTERY of the English language at best, although a LACK OF A LITERATE BACKGROUND is more probable in your case.
As for your argument about how fundamentalist is a better word choice, I will have to disagree, largely because fundamentalism was a religious movement in the early 20th century and might thus confuse someone who reads the sentence into assuming I am asking only about fundamentalism. There is often more than one word that can fit into a sentence and retain meaning. Imbecile.
|
On February 14 2009 06:07 fanatacist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2009 06:00 zulu_nation8 wrote:On February 14 2009 05:54 fanatacist wrote:On February 14 2009 03:11 zulu_nation8 wrote:
How can i argue for the opposite of your statement when I don't even know how you arrived at your statement in the first place?
You need support to argue a statement? Don't be silly. The sky is green. I don't tell you how I arrived at said conclusion but you can sure as hell argue it. Seriously lol. LOL THEN IT WOULDNT BE CALLED ARGUING YOU DUMB FUCK LOL YOU ARGUE THE STATEMENT I COUNTER YOUR ARGUMENTS DIPSHIT ROOOOOOOOOFL HEWWO
it wouldn't be called counter arguing, it would be called arguing, comprende?
|
On February 14 2009 06:17 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2009 06:14 fanatacist wrote:
"Exactly, you should now realize what a horrible definition you used."
Show nested quote +On February 14 2009 06:14 fanatacist wrote:
seems like someone isn't very ARTICULATE, which usually implies their LACK OF MASTERY of the English language at best,
|
On February 14 2009 06:16 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2009 06:17 zulu_nation8 wrote:On February 14 2009 06:14 fanatacist wrote:
"Exactly, you should now realize what a horrible definition you used."
On February 14 2009 06:14 fanatacist wrote:
seems like someone isn't very ARTICULATE, which usually implies their LACK OF MASTERY of the English language at best,
|
On February 14 2009 06:16 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2009 06:16 zulu_nation8 wrote:
"Exactly, you should now realize what a horrible definition you used."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
