| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Scorpyn
Caldari
Warp Ghosts Omega
Spectres of the Deep
   |
Posted - 2011.03.19 00:57:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Akita T
It's funny to see how some cling to the "it's still not fair" line even after having it explained. 
That's because the explanations don't make sense.
You take 2 somewhat related issues and ask questions about them from different viewpoints. What's true from one viewpoint may not be true for the other modified version of the issue while looking at it from a different viewpoint.
I know some ppl who can keep an argument going for a very long time simply because they keep trying to get the other person to see things from their perspective instead of trying to understand what the other person means.
"This car is grey." "No, it's metallic." "No, it's grey." <- For example stuff like that about a car that's both grey and metallic.
|
Scorpyn
Caldari
Warp Ghosts Omega
Spectres of the Deep
|
Posted - 2011.03.19 01:59:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Scorpyn on 19/03/2011 02:00:12
Originally by: Akita T
Hmm... more like "I believe this work of art to be beautiful" vs "I know for a fact that this work of art is beautiful" as one set of options for one question, compared with "beauty lies entirely in the eye of the beholder" vs "beauty has some objective component" as a second set of options in the linked question.
If you say that you know for a fact the work of art is beautiful while also saying that beauty is entirely subjective, then you have a bit of a tension in your beliefs, wouldn't you say so ?
And that was pretty much the whole point.
Art being purely subjective doesn't mean that art can't be beautiful.
What you'd probably mean is to ask for something that everybody would consider to be beautiful, in which case art wouldn't be purely subjective.
There is a big difference between "do you agree that this is beautiful" and "is it possible to not consider this to be beautiful".
|
Scorpyn
Caldari
Warp Ghosts Omega
Spectres of the Deep
|
Posted - 2011.03.19 12:07:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Akita T
The fact that in common language people say "X is beautiful" but they almost always mean one of the other two is another matter altogether - if you did mean one of the other two, then the "tension" you need to be aware of is between what you actually believe and what you manage to express when you claim to believe something.
You honestly think it makes sense to create a test where you have to redefine how the language is used?
|
Scorpyn
Caldari
Warp Ghosts Omega
Spectres of the Deep
|
Posted - 2011.03.19 12:23:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Scorpyn
You honestly think it makes sense to create a test where you have to redefine how the language is used?
You mean, one that uses language the way it's supposed to be used as opposed to how people ended up using it ? 
So you do consider it to be viable to redefine the usage of the language.
Well, that only works as long as you don't expect the results to be accurate.
|
Scorpyn
Caldari
Warp Ghosts Omega
Spectres of the Deep
|
Posted - 2011.03.19 12:55:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Scorpyn on 19/03/2011 12:56:41
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Scorpyn
So you do consider it to be viable to redefine the usage of the language.
Hardly a redefinition...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
If ppl use the language in a certain way and you suddenly expect them to use it in another way, how is that not a redefinition?
Edit : Since this is the kind of circle arguments that can keep going forever I'll stop posting now.
|
Scorpyn
Caldari
Warp Ghosts Omega
Spectres of the Deep
|
Posted - 2011.03.19 14:53:00 -
[6]
You consider the correct usage to be the exact definition of the language.
I consider it to be wrong if the question can be misunderstood because of how the language is used.
No amount of arguing is going to change the fact that both of us consider our own point of view to be more important, so please just drop it, because further discussion is pointless.
|
| |
|