Posts: 11,797 Likes: 9,607
Ethnicity: Royal Blood Country: USA mtDNA: H11 Politics: Not interested Religion: Christian (BUT NOT Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, Mormon, Jehovah Witness, Methodist, 7th Day Somethings, and more to add later) Age: Young Member Admiration & Reason: Polaris. The universe needs him.
Elizabeth — Very determined in her endeavors, never affected by anything that gets in her way.
Said by a smart Arktos member,
"A slavic girl may be so sweet. The nicest one you'll ever meet. She might seduce you if she can. You'll think she is your greatest fan. But cross her, and your fate she'll seal, with a will of titan steel."
Posts: 2,948 Likes: 2,129
Country: USA Ancestry: Apparently I’m directly related to Vikings Y-DNA: I-S8104 mtDNA: T1a1 Politics: Not the Hegelian Dialectic Religion: Christian Relationship Status: Seeing someone Age: 31
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
There's something interesting about speech acts as they are discussed in 'linguistic philosophy'. Some of phrases can be taken by someone as sorta action. For example, if I had come to the forum and loudly type 'I LOVE ELIZABETH!', and some of participants would have guessed my message as a reveal of my love to Elizabeth. But what is never done to this phrase - it can be accepted as both truth and false. So, such phrases can't help us if the case if we start to consider them as phrase with a 'special message'.
The secret of such phrases is in two spare adds to the phrases. Firstly, we start considering something behind it, secondly, considering something behind it means that something is linked with what are considering about. If A is a speech act, this means that someone (probably, the one who does all this routine) add ->B, so we get A->B, and B means that 'there's something inside an 'A' that causes B.
The statement x->B is usually dropped. But this statement is the main one. If A, and x->B, and A is truth, and x->B is supposed to be truth by the routine maker, than ... then nothing. There's no conclusion from A and x->B to something. That's why this mind-discussion is false.
So, you all can ask me: for why I wrote it? I'll explain - the very first statement in the start of the post is very close to the speech act phrase. We can't say whether it is a speech act or no in every case, but some of are able to be them. We can notice such claims in political or social life very often.
Last Edit: Sept 3, 2018 21:16:15 GMT by Deleted: those statement is truth