Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 24, 2020 16:12:00 GMT
A student's explanation made me perplexed. That's what he said:
"I think maniacs (and kinda) should deserve respect too. When they didn't do their work, everyone is safe. If a discoverer (a scientist) of an important (for humanity) law had gone through the park, and the maniac jad decided to not go there that night, the scientist would stay alive. So, both of them (the scientist and the maniac) would deserve praises and good credit".
And the student also said that not doing has the same impact for anything.
With no doubt the student talked about dialectical things, and it's known that dialectic logic requires more attention to its steps.
Such phrases as...:
"Atheists are thise who believes in the absence of God"
"Not smokers are those who smoke the lack of smoke"
"Vegans are those who eat non-availability of meat"
"Pedestrians are those who ride emptiness of transport", and so on.
...show us that changing the meaning of certain words to its oppositions causes on changing the main, determined, word. And, yes, we might do it, but its not the case of being pretty sure. Why?
First of all, changing the meaning by changing the word to its negation doesn't necessary change the sense of a word to its opposition. By just changing the word to its negation all what we do is changing the word – the letters, but we don't need that we need to change the sense of a whole word or a sentence. And changing the sense isn't the same.
We used to describe our words in positive degrees and shades. Using various free determinations give us nothing, but possible misunderstanding. Surely,no barriers us to use another vocabulary,but it doesn't good at all.
Such wrong usage is bad, bacause it is directed to word-equilibrations, rhetoric,and confusions, instead of finding points of understanding and a movement toward getting knowledge. We're stomping the same place, if instead of using effective language we use total weirdo mumbo-jumbo.
"I think maniacs (and kinda) should deserve respect too. When they didn't do their work, everyone is safe. If a discoverer (a scientist) of an important (for humanity) law had gone through the park, and the maniac jad decided to not go there that night, the scientist would stay alive. So, both of them (the scientist and the maniac) would deserve praises and good credit".
And the student also said that not doing has the same impact for anything.
With no doubt the student talked about dialectical things, and it's known that dialectic logic requires more attention to its steps.
Such phrases as...:
"Atheists are thise who believes in the absence of God"
"Not smokers are those who smoke the lack of smoke"
"Vegans are those who eat non-availability of meat"
"Pedestrians are those who ride emptiness of transport", and so on.
...show us that changing the meaning of certain words to its oppositions causes on changing the main, determined, word. And, yes, we might do it, but its not the case of being pretty sure. Why?
First of all, changing the meaning by changing the word to its negation doesn't necessary change the sense of a word to its opposition. By just changing the word to its negation all what we do is changing the word – the letters, but we don't need that we need to change the sense of a whole word or a sentence. And changing the sense isn't the same.
We used to describe our words in positive degrees and shades. Using various free determinations give us nothing, but possible misunderstanding. Surely,no barriers us to use another vocabulary,but it doesn't good at all.
Such wrong usage is bad, bacause it is directed to word-equilibrations, rhetoric,and confusions, instead of finding points of understanding and a movement toward getting knowledge. We're stomping the same place, if instead of using effective language we use total weirdo mumbo-jumbo.