|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 30, 2022 23:37:24 GMT
If two people hate each other are they really friends considering friendship is the sharing of the same interest(s)?
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jul 1, 2022 6:27:29 GMT
Your inability to see the separation point between imagination and reality, conceptual and factual Leaves me confused as to how you are a functioning member of society
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 1, 2022 19:27:36 GMT
This is an interesting question indeed.
I got a girl I had been felt in love with, but she hated me so much, so I started thinking if she loved me in such a twisted way?
I guess I was wrong. Our era is not a good one, and people are totally illogical. Hence, there are no friends who hate each other. Friends do not hate each other, they love each other.
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,698
Likes: 1,758
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Jul 3, 2022 4:06:01 GMT
Nah, part of the whole friendship thing is that they have to like each other. The word you're looking for is "enemy".
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 4, 2022 17:29:22 GMT
I have acquired the position that a 'friend' is someone who licks your boots in the hope of knifing you in the back later.
Or who, detests when you have success, out of envy, detests when you have failure, out of spite, and resents if you are an equal out of lack of identity.
Whereas an enemy is at least an honest reflection of their intent ; is thus easier to predict, and thus less harmful.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 7, 2022 20:47:07 GMT
Your inability to see the separation point between imagination and reality, conceptual and factual Leaves me confused as to how you are a functioning member of society A building is formed from the imagination as the schematics for it are grounded in abstractions. The imagination is formed from a building as what is imagined comes from a form observed through the senses. Both are connected.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 7, 2022 20:49:06 GMT
Interesting replies but the question still stands from another angle: friends share phenomena, two people hating each other share the phenomenon of mutual hatred, thus they are friends.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 7, 2022 20:52:27 GMT
Nah, part of the whole friendship thing is that they have to like each other. The word you're looking for is "enemy". Liking does not necessitate friendship as two people who do not know each other may like each other from a distance. Dislike is not necessary for being an enemy as two people who annoy each other still interact and get along.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 8, 2022 7:04:53 GMT
Interesting replies but the question still stands from another angle: friends share phenomena, two people hating each other share the phenomenon of mutual hatred, thus they are friends. If two people saw one girl, does it make them being two boyfriends of hers? I guess not. Sharing the experience of having the same phenomenon doesn't mean anything.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 4, 2022 23:05:24 GMT
Interesting replies but the question still stands from another angle: friends share phenomena, two people hating each other share the phenomenon of mutual hatred, thus they are friends. If two people saw one girl, does it make them being two boyfriends of hers? I guess not. Sharing the experience of having the same phenomenon doesn't mean anything. You are forgetting the girl might not be sharing the same observation...your logic begins with two people sharing the same thing, not the girl sharing the same thing with these two people. If two people saw the same thing then they share said experience and as such fall under the definition of friendship (ie sharing).
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 5, 2022 23:16:20 GMT
If two people saw one girl, does it make them being two boyfriends of hers? I guess not. Sharing the experience of having the same phenomenon doesn't mean anything. You are forgetting the girl might not be sharing the same observation...your logic begins with two people sharing the same thing, not the girl sharing the same thing with these two people. If two people saw the same thing then they share said experience and as such fall under the definition of friendship (ie sharing). Now I face the power of your argument. Honestly speaking it is metaphysically powerful, except for one (or maybe several?) thing: of self-reference. Because we don't know about it until now. Okay, why do I see your argument as a point one, and why I take it powerful? First of all, yes, sharing the same experience allow people to have friendship, and be truly close, especially when they're talking to each other. Then, this argument is metaphysically good, because, let's say the experience of two people is the same as Ex and Ey, where x, y - are people that may be a, b, .... In this case Ea=Eb is the same as to say experience of a = experience of b. We can numerize them like this: E1a=E1b; E2a=/=E2b; E3a=E3c & E3b=E3c --> E3a=E3b... And here we can face a very bright one metaphysical point that Leibniz had reached in a certain way. Okay, we might ask whether this possible: Ex=Ex?
If you remember, a formal model of friendship is: Ex=Ey <--> 'x is a friend of y'
But what about to be a friend to yourself? It's mathematically to have a self-reference, but how can this be possible? No, it's impossible. We may get it from these speculations: [( E1x=E1y & E2x=E2y & ... & Enx=Eny) --> x=y] is false And it must be obvious that this is impossible: totally same experience cannot be a friendship. So according by this logic we can just substitute the variables into the previous formula to get the answer: [( E1x=E1x & E2x=E2x & ... & Enx=Enx) --> x=x] is false So, if these speculations are correct, then one person cannot be a friend to his own, and two friends have to have some differences in their experience to be friends. If to continue this logic in this direction we can try to get some unexpectable results: ( Ekx=Emy & k--> n & m-->n) < --> 'the fridnship is going to fail' Ekx=Emy & Ek/Em=1/2 <--> 'the friendhip is going to be balanced'
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 11, 2022 21:21:38 GMT
You are forgetting the girl might not be sharing the same observation...your logic begins with two people sharing the same thing, not the girl sharing the same thing with these two people. If two people saw the same thing then they share said experience and as such fall under the definition of friendship (ie sharing). Now I face the power of your argument. Honestly speaking it is metaphysically powerful, except for one (or maybe several?) thing: of self-reference. Because we don't know about it until now. Okay, why do I see your argument as a point one, and why I take it powerful? First of all, yes, sharing the same experience allow people to have friendship, and be truly close, especially when they're talking to each other. Then, this argument is metaphysically good, because, let's say the experience of two people is the same as Ex and Ey, where x, y - are people that may be a, b, .... In this case Ea=Eb is the same as to say experience of a = experience of b. We can numerize them like this: E1a=E1b; E2a=/=E2b; E3a=E3c & E3b=E3c --> E3a=E3b... And here we can face a very bright one metaphysical point that Leibniz had reached in a certain way. Okay, we might ask whether this possible: Ex=Ex?
If you remember, a formal model of friendship is: Ex=Ey <--> 'x is a friend of y'
But what about to be a friend to yourself? It's mathematically to have a self-reference, but how can this be possible? No, it's impossible. We may get it from these speculations: [( E1x=E1y & E2x=E2y & ... & Enx=Eny) --> x=y] is false And it must be obvious that this is impossible: totally same experience cannot be a friendship. So according by this logic we can just substitute the variables into the previous formula to get the answer: [( E1x=E1x & E2x=E2x & ... & Enx=Enx) --> x=x] is false So, if these speculations are correct, then one person cannot be a friend to his own, and two friends have to have some differences in their experience to be friends. If to continue this logic in this direction we can try to get some unexpectable results: ( Ekx=Emy & k--> n & m-->n) < --> 'the fridnship is going to fail' Ekx=Emy & Ek/Em=1/2 <--> 'the friendhip is going to be balanced'To be a friend to oneself necessitates a split in the identity of the "I" and this split occurs across time and space, one I exists in one time and space and another I exists across another time and space. This multiplicity of I's necessitates that a bond across the I's, ie a "friendship", must occur through a third "I" that exists outside of time and space. This "bonding" I is the act of friendship itself, considering friendship is a bond, and from this it may be implied that friendship is a phenomenon that is synonymous to identity.
|
|