EPTAsk and answer stupid questions here! - Page 657
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On August 15 2017 01:55 IgnE wrote: well if you can make up definitions for "warlords" you can make up definitions for "constitutions." it's turtles all the way down dude If you feel there is confusion on what having a constitution means please clarify. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On August 15 2017 02:03 AbouSV wrote: Can you make up a definition for 'definition'? It's from the Latin Definire meaning to set to bounds, or to limit. An idea of there being a boundary that needs to be marked, but also an idea of a lack of preciseness. Less a link to the thing itself and more the dialogue or process that confines the thing in question. Ie, to define is to construct the boundaries that limits what the object or concept in question is. How do you define the word? | ||
|
AbouSV
Germany1278 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On August 15 2017 03:07 JimmiC wrote: I have decided that my definition of 2 is what most would say is 2.5 so now for me 2 + 2 is 5. There is not arguing this because it's just my definition. Yours can be different, we can all have our own definitions for things and all never be wrong! WooT!!! Being unable to dictate the specifics of your stance outside of assuming it's a shared understanding by a perceived plurality is not the limitation of the subject discussed, but is instead a limitation of the speaker's own imagination, revealing an inherent simplicity in his view of the world at large. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On August 15 2017 03:38 AbouSV wrote: As a strawberry cake with a scarf. And how useful has that been for you? | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On August 15 2017 03:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote: In other words, you view that other people pointing out that you are simply making up the meaning of words are stupid. Well, what can I say. In viewing every other person in disdain, you have surely proven yourself disdainful. Afterall, it you who has the limited view. I view language and communication as ever evolving and adaptive. I view that being cognizant and curious about why things are perceived truths is fruitful to the evolution of human understanding. That being willing to think about why we think about things in certain ways leads to a deeper understanding of ourselves. Being unwilling to accept the fluidity of human perception and understanding I find, mundane and simplistic. Of course, if you are the type to believe that human l owledge is static and not open for change then I can see why there is resistant to suggesting a fluidity to how things can or can't be seen. Simply put, I don't care that people dislike me for discussing ideas. To be frank, I don't come to video game threads to look for emotional comfort. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9252 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On August 15 2017 03:31 Thieving Magpie wrote: If you feel there is confusion on what having a constitution means please clarify. i think the confusion is all on your end (i.e. a consitution is a piece of paper). i could try and lead you through it but dealings with you seem more like an instance of "you can lead a horse to water . . ." you know to win in chess you have to consider the other side's best moves. a conversation with you is like a chess game where you make every move under the delusion that your opponent wants to help you get a fool's mate. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On August 15 2017 03:39 Thieving Magpie wrote: Being unable to dictate the specifics of your stance outside of assuming it's a shared understanding by a perceived plurality is not the limitation of the subject discussed, but is instead a limitation of the speaker's own imagination, revealing an inherent simplicity in his view of the world at large. what would stanley fish say? probably that TMagPie is just doing what comes naturally | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On August 15 2017 04:32 IgnE wrote: i think the confusion is all on your end (i.e. a consitution is a piece of paper). i could try and lead you through it but dealings with you seem more like an instance of "you can lead a horse to water . . ." you know to win in chess you have to consider the other side's best moves. a conversation with you is like a chess game where you make every move under the delusion that your opponent wants to help you get a fool's mate. I only talk about the constitution because you brought it up. I assumed it would be a written constitution because I assumed you'd at least want proof of it. If you don't even need for them to have proof of having a constitution, then couldn't anyone being accused of being a warlord simply state that they have a constitution and then they're automatically no longer warlords in your eyes? Is the mere promise that they have a constitution enough for you, or would you need proof that they have it? Or is the constitution aspect you brought up actually unimportant to how you define someone as a warlord? Simply a shorthand you use to make the decision easier for you without actually confining yourself to a strict definition? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On August 15 2017 04:05 Sent. wrote: What would happen if you put JimmiC and Thieving Magpie on a desert island? Couldn't it be a dessert island instead? Or even a dessert inland? That would be so much better. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On August 15 2017 04:45 Thieving Magpie wrote: I only talk about the constitution because you brought it up. I assumed it would be a written constitution because I assumed you'd at least want proof of it. If you don't even need for them to have proof of having a constitution, then couldn't anyone being accused of being a warlord simply state that they have a constitution and then they're automatically no longer warlords in your eyes? Is the mere promise that they have a constitution enough for you, or would you need proof that they have it? Or is the constitution aspect you brought up actually unimportant to how you define someone as a warlord? Simply a shorthand you use to make the decision easier for you without actually confining yourself to a strict definition? "confining myself to a strict definition?" do you think language is like math? have you ever thought about wittgenstein's investigations of rule-following? what do you think a constitution is? a piece of paper? why should a warlord's piece of paper be considered a "constitution" rather than a "faux constitution?" fool's mate is boring, magpie, and i don't know why you are so enamored of it. but so is mating you in 10. let's go a bit deeper to reach the "truth" of this position. it will require effort on your part | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On August 15 2017 04:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote: First you have to define every word in that sentence. Then you have to evolve and adapt every single word. Only then can we acheive true enlightment. To answer your question, look to the changer of ways, that way the path is to follow, and so the opening occurs, the fluidity is expanded. If you are disinterested in discourse it is easy enough to simply stop speaking. If your goal is to ridicule you could simply keep it at PMs and not clutter the thread. I can be disinterested in your comments regardless, but you could at least keep your illogical comments away from the main site. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On August 15 2017 04:51 IgnE wrote: "confining myself to a strict definition?" do you think language is like math? have you ever thought about wittgenstein's investigations of rule-following? what do you think a constitution is? a piece of paper? why should a warlord's piece of paper be considered a "constitution" rather than a "faux constitution?" fool's mate is boring, magpie, and i don't know why you are so enamored of it. but so is mating you in 10. let's go a bit deeper to reach the "truth" of this position. it will require effort on your part I have read Wittgenstein. I am unsure about your bringing him up in discourse about how you define warlords. Constitutions can be anything, I simply assumed you required proof of one. Not requiring proof of a declared constitution means you'd have to take a warlord at his word that he has one; which is a fairly useless way to define if someone is or isn't a warlord. Like I asked--did you actually mean what you said about requiring a constitution or is it just shorthand for you. If it is, I'd rather learn what your more fundamental basis of what defines a warlord is. If you still require for them to have a constitution, but somehow don't require proof of it, then it feels like a fairly meaningless requirement to me. There's a reason I don't care about it when defining if someone is or isn't a warlord. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
you are exactly the person wittgenstein was thinking about, who, when asked to enumerate the series of even numbers goes 2, 4, 6 . . . and then, 1000, 1004, 1008. when everyone else stops and says no, no, we meant add two, you say "but thats precisely what im doing. add 2 up to 1000, then add 4 up to 2000, then add 6 . . ." | ||
| ||
