Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 14, 2021 20:22:58 GMT
Viewing a word Nothing we can find many interesting, yet unusual, sometimes weird and paradoxical things; especially taking this word as something less material, as Nothingness or Non-Being. Such problems occur when semantically it must be said as There are three apples, and it sounds ok, while hearing this example There is an emptiness of three apples or Apples does not exist, or even in a more stronger form Apples even cannot be mentioned we start worrying about it, as either there's something wrong with our understanding of it, or there's something wrong with our language.
With Weakness or The Weak it can happen too, but it doesn't so obvious for everyone; I would say - almost nobody sees what's happening to this word when we're researching it as the same way as the previous word. Firstly, it's seen that the abstract term Weakness (I write in starting from a capital letter, because I'd rather try to focus on it conceptual side; however, this concept might have usage in common situations) is a relative one, and it has its oppositions as Strength or Strengths, and - because of the different contexts - it has some other antonyms like Power, or Vigor, and also Resolve or Solutions. I'd say that in some usual situation many people would prefer to call The Power as an opposition to Weakness, because a political contexts is more dominant over else's. Because of some troubles with antonyms to the discussed word, I will be naming relative word to Weakness as Power or Force; and Power will be taken as more social, while Force as less social terms.
Each time trying to notify our preferences, or claiming about doing something - we've been already using that Power or Force. It must be seen: we want something and our actions are directed to perform them, to reach the point, or to get what we've been wishing to get. There's no need to deny the fact that each of our wish or action is tied up closely with as Power so Force. Another way to view it by saying that a person has no free will and any action of a person is a result of some processes in nature. In this case it would be either a paraphrases, or just changing roles (like it happened in The Twelfth Night, or What You Will) of notions, nothing more. No evidence that Force or Power aren't being used: even a smallest thought of ours, or a tiny movement of our bodies (or within it) represents it. The existence of a mind requires the shell and and some processes in it, and there's no matter and no processes that are not Force & Power.
(Same argumentation is in The World as Will and Representation by Arthur Schopenhauer. I presented some thought that the work of the philosopher had already had , but in some rough and a bad manner. So, to view all those arguments in its complete form requires knowledge of the book's content.)
The most intriguing thing is hidden in that that comprehending of the fact that, at least metaphysically, there's nothing that happens without Force and Power for a sapiens human does not bring us closer to understanding what Weakness is! Indeed, we can dialectically change Force or Power to Weakness (just like "P" to "opposition to P"), but it leads us to a thought, that there is something (some Force or Power) and it is being diminished, i.e. if A is Force & Power and B is some actions, then A minus B equals to C that is Weakness. So, it means that the concept of Weakness cannot be used without Force and Power; that means that there's no change to go out the dialectical circle. And it might lead us to continue it using some phenomenological interprets.
When we talking about some phenomenological case that includes Weakness, then we'd better to check them closely. Luckily, there's an example of analysis of Force that is presented in H. Spiegelberg's "The Phenomenological Movement", part XIV. (I'm gonna take the analysis partially.) There we can find a case of playing with a ball, and what is happening when we're hitting a ball. The most precise analysis of it shows that the Force requires its bearer - the one who felt it, and recognize/activate it. That's why no surprise that Hume doubted existence of the Force and many scientists and philosophers refused it in XIX century.
So, this brief look as we can see evidences that phenomenon elapses from our understanding no matter what side has we chosen.
With Weakness or The Weak it can happen too, but it doesn't so obvious for everyone; I would say - almost nobody sees what's happening to this word when we're researching it as the same way as the previous word. Firstly, it's seen that the abstract term Weakness (I write in starting from a capital letter, because I'd rather try to focus on it conceptual side; however, this concept might have usage in common situations) is a relative one, and it has its oppositions as Strength or Strengths, and - because of the different contexts - it has some other antonyms like Power, or Vigor, and also Resolve or Solutions. I'd say that in some usual situation many people would prefer to call The Power as an opposition to Weakness, because a political contexts is more dominant over else's. Because of some troubles with antonyms to the discussed word, I will be naming relative word to Weakness as Power or Force; and Power will be taken as more social, while Force as less social terms.
Each time trying to notify our preferences, or claiming about doing something - we've been already using that Power or Force. It must be seen: we want something and our actions are directed to perform them, to reach the point, or to get what we've been wishing to get. There's no need to deny the fact that each of our wish or action is tied up closely with as Power so Force. Another way to view it by saying that a person has no free will and any action of a person is a result of some processes in nature. In this case it would be either a paraphrases, or just changing roles (like it happened in The Twelfth Night, or What You Will) of notions, nothing more. No evidence that Force or Power aren't being used: even a smallest thought of ours, or a tiny movement of our bodies (or within it) represents it. The existence of a mind requires the shell and and some processes in it, and there's no matter and no processes that are not Force & Power.
(Same argumentation is in The World as Will and Representation by Arthur Schopenhauer. I presented some thought that the work of the philosopher had already had , but in some rough and a bad manner. So, to view all those arguments in its complete form requires knowledge of the book's content.)
The most intriguing thing is hidden in that that comprehending of the fact that, at least metaphysically, there's nothing that happens without Force and Power for a sapiens human does not bring us closer to understanding what Weakness is! Indeed, we can dialectically change Force or Power to Weakness (just like "P" to "opposition to P"), but it leads us to a thought, that there is something (some Force or Power) and it is being diminished, i.e. if A is Force & Power and B is some actions, then A minus B equals to C that is Weakness. So, it means that the concept of Weakness cannot be used without Force and Power; that means that there's no change to go out the dialectical circle. And it might lead us to continue it using some phenomenological interprets.
When we talking about some phenomenological case that includes Weakness, then we'd better to check them closely. Luckily, there's an example of analysis of Force that is presented in H. Spiegelberg's "The Phenomenological Movement", part XIV. (I'm gonna take the analysis partially.) There we can find a case of playing with a ball, and what is happening when we're hitting a ball. The most precise analysis of it shows that the Force requires its bearer - the one who felt it, and recognize/activate it. That's why no surprise that Hume doubted existence of the Force and many scientists and philosophers refused it in XIX century.
So, this brief look as we can see evidences that phenomenon elapses from our understanding no matter what side has we chosen.