EPTAsk and answer stupid questions here! - Page 641
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 05 2017 04:19 IgnE wrote: its not a distinction between "matter and space" but between matter and form. it's not a third plane so much as the plane-ness of space-matter From the Wiki The term has been used in philosophy by Plato to designate a receptacle (as a “third kind” [triton genos]; Timaeus 48e4), a space, a material substratum, or an interval.In Plato's account, khôra is neither being nor nonbeing but an interval between in which the "forms" were originally held; it "gives space" and has maternal overtones (a womb, matrix) It is a receptacle where forms are put in. Various philosophers then argue about what form, space, and being means in relation to this word. Which philosopher are you trying to use as the strict definition of your understanding of this word outside of its initial use? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 05 2017 04:22 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Theiving Magpie did you know that there's a whole branch of reality under study that we call "physics" ? Not everything relates to philosophy. Did you also know I was not the one who literally brought up Plato in the use of the term Khona. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On July 05 2017 04:24 Thieving Magpie wrote: From the Wiki It is a receptacle where forms are put in. Various philosophers then argue about what form, space, and being means in relation to this word. Which philosopher are you trying to use as the strict definition of your understanding of this word outside of its initial use? do you know what this "neither being nor nonbeing" entails? is the "space", the air, of the empty warehouse an existent thing? measurable by physics? and now consider the "receptacle" or "place" in which that space is situated. or consider "where" the universe is "received." coincidentally your fondness of the word "literally" is starting to make a lot of sense. the world according to tmagpie is no doubt univocal | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 05 2017 04:53 IgnE wrote: do you know what this "neither being nor nonbeing" entails? is the "space", the air, of the empty warehouse an existent thing? measurable by physics? and now consider the "receptacle" or "place" in which that space is situated. or consider "where" the universe is "received." coincidentally your fondness of the word "literally" is starting to make a lot of sense. the world according to tmagpie is no doubt univocal I do know. Hence why you bringing it up from my response to someone talking about shooting a gun to create a space within a space does not make sense. He already says that there is a defined space, current existence. You know he means current existence because his example is a person, right now, holding a gun, that shoots fucking space into space. It is clear and transparent he has already defined the receptacle. It is also clear and transparent that he has already defined what he means by space by specifically defining that he is not talking about mass, or matter. He does not ask us to imagine nothingness, and then to imagine in that nothingness, to image space, and then to imaging space in that nothingness to then have more space inside it. He is not talking about the concept of base abstractions being used as receptacles for abstractions of observable phenomena--he literally asked to shoot space into a space using a gun. He literally said that matter is not what he is talking about, but literal space itself. His follow up example was of literal fart representing emptiness surrounded by fucking water representing matter. And here you are being defensive about you bringing up Plato talking about the burbs to represent abstracted concepts of where we imagine voids and non-voids to exist in? The following is possibly inflammatory so only read it if you're thick skinned enough to be okay reading it. + Show Spoiler + So tell me, what does your masturbatory attempt to feel superior by throwing greek words at someone's question do to help answer the question? What does you coming in to nitpick on his word choice, just so you can pretend that you are more impressive than him do to move the topic forward? How does stupidly quoting Pluto in an attempt to reference modern physics, while still not actually dealing with the question at hand help anyone? Tell me Igne, how does that help answer his question more succinctly and more accurately than my answer of "it can't happen." | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
Most of the shit you said in that post about what you think he said is imputed only by you to the detriment of the question. Any time someone says, "He already said . . . You know he means . . . it is clear and transparent . . . it is also clear and transparent . . ." you should be suspicious. If I had to venture a guess I would say that your third paragraph shows the most progress on this issue, even though I literally disagree with almost all of it. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18364 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 05 2017 15:20 IgnE wrote: I don't see that it ["shooting space into space"] can't happen, and I think you are the defensive one who still doesn't get what anyone is talking about [probably because you don't get what anyone is talking about]. Most of the shit you said in that post about what you think he said is imputed only by you to the detriment of the question. Any time someone says, "He already said . . . You know he means . . . it is clear and transparent . . . it is also clear and transparent . . ." you should be suspicious. If I had to venture a guess I would say that your third paragraph shows the most progress on this issue, even though I literally disagree with almost all of it. Really now? Lets look at what he says. I don't think you come off too negative, however, I do think you're underestimating me. I know the universe is expanding. I'm talking about a hypothetical machine that's invented/made that can literally create space. What about that is opaque to you? What about that is not directly linked to what I said? Which of that links to Plato? Which of that links to what you believe the discussion is about? Let's say matter can be made (fusion, kind of) or that we can use/condense photons to make it into matter; great, that's straightforward and not abstract because we know what matter is (we interact with it all the time), and it's probably the most researched property of our universe. It might not be possible because of the laws that act upon energy, but it can at least be thought about conceptually. Which of that paragraph is where he talks about that he cares about how matter works in this discussion? Where does it say here that matter is what he cares about when talking about space? Where does he bring up that he wants to know Igne's ideas on how being and non-being exists in a greek word meaning outside the city but is used by non-greeks to talk about space without using the word space because they love being pedantic. But what happens when you introduce new space into existing space. Wow, he repeats his initial hypothesis. Its like he's trying o talk to you but you keep wanting to talk about philosophy. Or, let's think about it in another way, could we pinch of a piece of space? Let's say you want to "quarantine" the cubic meter of space that floats right above your head. How would/could that work? When he talks about pinching space, when he talks about putting space in quarantine and talks about moving space around--at which point did you think "He obviously meant the abstract concept of space that voids and objects are put into and not a person pinching space and not a space that is being experienced by someone in it, I mean sure he literally does say it, but why not talk about Plato and pretend I care about what he says." Like I said, it's pretty out there, but that's because something like space (time much less, even though they're so linked with each other) is so much more esoteric for me. Look, its like he's trying to tell you guys that he's trying to talk about something and doesn't care what the correct word choice is. Of course I don't know as much about time and matter as I should, so I can probably expect another Cascade post directed to me, but it's just some stuff I like to think about, even though it's not fruitful in any way. Look at him again, pointing out that he's probably not being scientifically sound but that he's trying to get to an idea of discussion. But what could that idea of discussion be? Apparently you (Igne) think that it isn't obvious, like the guy didn't literally mention it twice. Like the guy didn't literally re-describe it again as fart in water. Oh wait, he did, those were his actual words. So how does Igne respond to someone talking about this topic? Oh right, not enough Plato Igne says. Not enough physics others say--even though Igne keeps trying to re-use Derrida's words on metaphysics. So tell me Igne, where did you get lost. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18364 Posts
On July 05 2017 16:04 Thieving Magpie wrote: Really now? Lets look at what he says. What about that is opaque to you? What about that is not directly linked to what I said? Which of that links to Plato? Which of that links to what you believe the discussion is about? Which of that paragraph is where he talks about that he cares about how matter works in this discussion? Where does it say here that matter is what he cares about when talking about space? Where does he bring up that he wants to know Igne's ideas on how being and non-being exists in a greek word meaning outside the city but is used by non-greeks to talk about space without using the word space because they love being pedantic. Wow, he repeats his initial hypothesis. Its like he's trying o talk to you but you keep wanting to talk about philosophy. When he talks about pinching space, when he talks about putting space in quarantine and talks about moving space around--at which point did you think "He obviously meant the abstract concept of space that voids and objects are put into and not a person pinching space and not a space that is being experienced by someone in it, I mean sure he literally does say it, but why not talk about Plato and pretend I care about what he says." Look, its like he's trying to tell you guys that he's trying to talk about something and doesn't care what the correct word choice is. Look at him again, pointing out that he's probably not being scientifically sound but that he's trying to get to an idea of discussion. But what could that idea of discussion be? Apparently you (Igne) think that it isn't obvious, like the guy didn't literally mention it twice. Like the guy didn't literally re-describe it again as fart in water. Oh wait, he did, those were his actual words. So how does Igne respond to someone talking about this topic? Oh right, not enough Plato Igne says. Not enough physics others say--even though Igne keeps trying to re-use Derrida's words on metaphysics. So tell me Igne, where did you get lost. While IgnE lost the plot, you definitely did too. Don't start quoting uldridge to show IgnE lost the plot when he literally told you you had not understood the question. And then ignored that and continued to answer whatever goes on in your mind for another two pages... Simberto answered this question. It's over. No need for Plato or TM's mind palace invention of what space is supposed to be. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 05 2017 16:16 Acrofales wrote: While IgnE lost the plot, you definitely did too. Don't start quoting uldridge to show IgnE lost the plot when he literally told you you had not understood the question. And then ignored that and continued to answer whatever goes on in your mind for another two pages... Simberto answered this question. It's over. No need for Plato or TM's mind palace invention of what space is supposed to be. I disagree, especially since his most recent attempt to write out his ideas was telling us to imagine pools of matter (water) where we shoot space into it (bubbles), which matches exactly what I was talking about when I brought up the idea of removing matter to create space. But yes, I agree with the concensus that there are people on this thread who would rather argue about the definition of the word space, and that is a conversation that is less interesting--I agree. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5186 Posts
Even though I knew my question was very stupid, I did not know to what extent its effect would have on this thread and therefore I regret the turn it has taken. I hope we can somehow move forward from the place we've encountered, which is grim and full of woe. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 05 2017 23:33 Uldridge wrote: I want to issue a public apology, AAASQT. I knew I should have refrained myself from asking these questions. I'll take a hiatus from asking stupid questions to reevaluate my repertoire of stupid questions. Even though I knew my question was very stupid, I did not know to what extent its effect would have on this thread and therefore I regret the turn it has taken. I hope we can somehow move forward from the place we've encountered, which is grim and full of woe. Don't apologize. The thread turned sideways when people started accusing me not using the word "space" the way they wanted to use the word "space" which then required me to have to quote and requote everything being talked about to show why I said the things I said and why what they said did not make sense in actually answering the words posted. The question itself was innocent, I just wasn't willing to be accused of not staying on topic or be accused of making things up. You were not the one who showed up and started getting upset about word choice. Do not apologize for that. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5186 Posts
 | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
waffelz
Germany711 Posts
On July 06 2017 07:27 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What is AAASQT? Google has failed me. No this is not an excuse to asspull out an irrelevant vacuous philosophical bull. Ask And Answer Stupid Questions Thread. Aparently forgot the "here". Bonusquestion: what actual qualifications does a news anchor have. The people that literaly (seemingly) do nothing else than reading/presenting the news. I read a small interview where a newsanchor from my country said some things about being confused when she changed something in her appearal and immediately got asked by her boss if this was going to be something permanent. Either I am really ignorant, or they really do not need any more qualifications other than being albe to speak/read properly and look presentable, right? Someone might give some insight? I am not talking about reporters/people who host shows with actual topics and guests, questions and such, just the people who read the news. And of course I am only talking about their job as a news anchor, I know that they usually also do other stuff. This is one of those questions that are hard to ask someone who actualy works that job lol... "So do your job requires any real qualifications?" | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
As a special exception, if you have a yeast infection in your bladder it might ferment your urine. You probably also want the answer to the more general "Is it possible to get drunk off urine?". According to urine-based drug tests, urine alcohol levels peak at about 1.3 times blood alcohol levels. Blood alcohol levels above about 0.4% mean they're unlikely to be in a shape where you can collect urine samples. Beer has about a 4% alcohol content. That means you'd need 8 glasses of urine from people who were on the verge of dying of alcohol poisoning in order to get the alcohol content of a beer. I'm going with "no it's not possible unless they have a yeast infection in their bladder". P.S. If you wonder why I bring up yeast infections, that info is also in the drug testing manual. | ||
|
AbouSV
Germany1278 Posts
https://xkcd.com/1860/ | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
That's actually a fairly tenuous topic in humanities, especially since almost everything save for new discoveries (and even most new discoveries) are dependent on cross referencing and inferring from past works. As such, the discussion of "what did the author mean" versus "what does the reader understand" becomes very hot button issues in relation to human experience. For example--does it matter how much the egg asks people to help him down if nobody understands him? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
| ||
