For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
IIIII'm gonna say you're still mistaking an analogy for the reality itself.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:44 pmBut a windshield can be damaged and still useful.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:58 amIIIII'm gonna say you're mistaking an analogy for the reality itself.
Can't help you there.
Right. One can pick apart an action, and show good and bad elements within it, without being able to decide whether the action overall was good or evil. Take the action of stealing bread to feed one's family. Feeding one's family is good. Stealing is bad. And that doesn't make the action neutral...it makes it a discrete composite of good and bad elements.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:50 pmMetaphors and figuratives aside: there is good intent/action and evil intent/action. There's no neutral midpoint between them.
A neutral moral action, such as eating noodles instead of bread, can be neither good nor bad or both good and bad (such as eating pizza over vegetables/meat for dinner, ie it is good to eat but bad to each poorly.)henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:50 pmMetaphors and figuratives aside: there is good intent/action and evil intent/action. There's no neutral midpoint between them.
All forms of reality are descriptive by nature, as descriptive both real life and analogies have a common bond.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:49 pmIIIII'm gonna say you're still mistaking an analogy for the reality itself.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:44 pmBut a windshield can be damaged and still useful.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:58 am
IIIII'm gonna say you're mistaking an analogy for the reality itself.
Can't help you there.
I think we can dicker over where diet sits, but diet ain't neutral either.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:24 pmA neutral moral action, such as eating noodles instead of bread, can be neither good nor bad or both good and bad (such as eating pizza over vegetables/meat for dinner, ie it is good to eat but bad to each poorly.)henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:50 pmMetaphors and figuratives aside: there is good intent/action and evil intent/action. There's no neutral midpoint between them.
"A common bond," but never "total identity."
Yes it can be.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:29 pmI think we can dicker over where diet sits, but diet ain't neutral either.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:24 pmA neutral moral action, such as eating noodles instead of bread, can be neither good nor bad or both good and bad (such as eating pizza over vegetables/meat for dinner, ie it is good to eat but bad to each poorly.)henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:50 pm
Metaphors and figuratives aside: there is good intent/action and evil intent/action. There's no neutral midpoint between them.
All phenomenon can exist through analogies as certain qualities have a common bond with other qualities through a medial quality.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:45 pm"A common bond," but never "total identity."
An analogy is no good if it's too far away from being connected with its subject, but also no good if it's so identical to its subject that it's the same as what it attempts to analogize. So with an analogy, we've always got to be content that it's comparable well to one aspect of its subject, and not ask that it be exactly the same as its subject in all respects.
This isn't coherent English.
All phenomena may possibly exist through analogies.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:30 pmThis isn't coherent English.
A singular noun is linked to a plural and intransitive verb, with another noun used as the object of an ambiguous preposition.
That doesn't work. No sense can be made from it.
So, naturally, I can't respond.
Yeah, that's the sentence. You fixed the agreement problem, but nothing else.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:48 pmAll phenomena may possibly exist through analogies.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:30 pmThis isn't coherent English.
A singular noun is linked to a plural and intransitive verb, with another noun used as the object of an ambiguous preposition.
That doesn't work. No sense can be made from it.
So, naturally, I can't respond.
Along an infinite continuum all phenomenon are center points to further phenomenon.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:50 pmYeah, that's the sentence. You fixed the agreement problem, but nothing else.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:48 pmAll phenomena may possibly exist through analogies.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:30 pm
This isn't coherent English.
A singular noun is linked to a plural and intransitive verb, with another noun used as the object of an ambiguous preposition.
That doesn't work. No sense can be made from it.
So, naturally, I can't respond.
????Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:58 pmAlong an infinite continuum all phenomenon are center points to further phenomenon.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:50 pmYeah, that's the sentence. You fixed the agreement problem, but nothing else.