Here I wrote my argument in my recent debate --- I hope everyone learns a very valuable point.
There is a big difference between words and definitions - definitions - definitio meaning [QUOTE]specification of the essential properties of something, or of the criteria which uniquely identify [/QUOTE]
Yes?? Simple. To specify the properties components that build a set. In other words, definitions are logical components that are used to specify an elemental set. They specify, individual elements, like stones, where they can structure a foundation. Yes? Yes, they are specifications of a component that identifies the elements. Together they build a set. So definition is the specification and identification of values that structure a given syntax within a specific structure.
Another example: let us look at syllogism in basic predicate.
The syntax is simple- "You are a participant"
Major premise: You [as the major premise, that defines the whole of the syntax]
Minor Premise: are a [verb action, state, or a relation between two things]
Conclusion: Participant!
Basic. The major premise defines the whole, or the prime of the syntax, but has missing elements. No specification. As "are a" is action state connected to 'a' which 'determiner'. Where are a is the specifications that give detail in reference to the major, and connects to the conclusion. Then "Moderator!" This is the conclusion that completes the syntax. The result. So the definitions are 'you','are a','participant'. That is basic predicate logic.
Here is where your claims lose their base... Definitions by classification are logical in nature. Get me? Logical. And what is logic? Reasoning, right? A systematic ruling system to prove truth with the correct algorithms, yeah?
These examples are to illustrate Logic, where I will give a few examples to logic. The base: to draw the idea of logic, as definitions are inherited from logic. So I will give examples to logic, and reasoning, to justify my claims.
For example
p q p=>q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
That is just a basic example.
0 and 0 = 0
0 and 1 = 0
1 and 0 = 0
1 and 1 = 1
___________
0 or 0 = 0
0 or 1 = 1
1 or 1 = 1
___________
0 xor 0 = 0
0 xor 1 = 1
1 xor 0 = 1
1 xor 1 = 0
__________
I am not going to spell this out for all of you. But, if you have a sharp mind, clearly you can see the pattern in concept?
I am not going to over all logic, here. These are just examples to demonstrate a point!
Logics main agenda is to connect the hypothesis p to the conclusion q with => "connector." We use a number of different components, and compounds to do such, in many different approaches. Here is a few: Formal System, Proposition Formula, Sequent, Assumptions, Laws, operators such as NOT/AND/OR/XOR/IF/THEN/ The list goes on. There are too many to count. Others are axioms, and establishing a theorem, through many algorithmic procedures. This is logic, yes? It is hardly arguable. But remember I am giving examples here, to summarize logic.
Logic is the foundation for problem solving, and rational reasoning.
Here is another idea or example of LOGIC. Let us look at the operand.
What is my point? Well, you see, definitions is from logic.
This is where your negation had its errors... Let me verify.... [QUOTE]If you're not using a word[/QUOTE] ^ [QUOTE]you NEED to define how you're using it.[/QUOTE]
Words and Definition aren't always the same thing.
I mean a poem has words, yes? A parable has word, yes? If you were humming a melody, this has words, yes? Is it logical? No. Poems are narrations used in sequence, in a rhythmic structure, where it can be based on timing and rhythm, to express feeling. Each word has no logical narration, and each word are metaphorical (all/form) which is allegorical in nature. No logic. Definitions are.
So a word isn't logic, but definitions are.
Kanji are words, but have no logical narration. They are based on rhythm, intentions, metaphor. What are Kanji's? They were inherited from Chinese characters from 6th century BCE. This doesn't imply that they are Chinese. The symbols were just used for their own speaking.
Kanji - picturegraphic- ideographic characters, used in conceotual words, which consist of substantives, verbs, and adjectives as well as native names. Kana - phonetic symbols that were devopled in Japan. Where each symbol represents a given sound of one syllable. Where Kana are divided into two groups (syllablaries)
Hiragana used to write endings of conceptual words that are written in Kanji, same with other kind of words that are not written in Kanji
Katakana are used for words in different origin.
Japanese is not logic, but are words. Logic has fixed results based on the reasonable tables of reference. Japanese is based on metaphorical, allegorical, philosophical, where its syntax and structure is of rhythm value, rather than rational.
So let us use a logical table to prove this to be false, and my point to be true?
Japanese AND Reason must hold both true for the conclusion of definition and words
Japanese are words: Fact.
If Japanese words are words ^ NOT Definitions - Then → words that have to be defined as such, is False. Simple.
So that is proof that words don't have to be logical in nature. If I am wrong in the manner, is there a rule here where every little thing has to be logical. If so, point it out to me?? If not, what is your case? I would like to know. You are saying [pretty much] everything has to be presented in logic. In any other situation you are so right, but this is philosophy. debate.
Do you know Greek? Last time I checked, Sophie didn't mean logic; it means wisdom. -- where Philo is Love. The foundation isn't logic, or key principle. Can you prove me wrong? Logic was only used by the Greeks to argue concepts, in rational discussion. But wisdom itself isn't logic. You can't argue with me on that. Because you will have to disprove the most vast cultures who upholder WISDOM for thousands of years, before the Greeks; you would have to prove them wrong. Chinese/Japanese/India/ are they all wrong? Can you really prove the oldest cultures in history to be wrong, with your education?
I've been practicing/studying eastern philosophy/phenomenology - for 30 years.
The oldest philosophies were Tamilans, Indus people, Words of the Kototama-ancestry, and others in East Asia. Much of the philosophies that survived thousands of years. Wisdom is pretty simple, it is life. Learning from life. It is not arguing a concept in informal discussion. That is a narrow western view.
Did I define it well? Did I actually get my point straight across. Oh, and btw, Buddha narrated much philosophy in parables, not logic.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Subjective Personal Final Thoughts To All Of Y'all
Case Closed. I was being trapped, and bullied, just because I was a loner in the debate. Yes, I made errors, such as introducing too many variables, which could've confused the agenda of the argument. But, I admitted my errors, where I was being disrespected, and the other party was parading their authority with such arrogance. The conflict was: definitions, and how definitions don't have to be narrated in a debate in regards to "philosophy". Next time you want to intimate me, or bully, you might want to think twice. I actually never lost a debate, and I do know how to use my mind. So, think about it? Debates aren't based on being right, but reaching a solution. Just because I am very poetic/abstract, and metaphorical- doesn't mean that I am ignorant in the ways of logic. I just try to balance logic with reasoning, as they are lovers of the cosmos. Your fixed ideas is how you lost.
Thank You. I hope the readers get the point to this post. Remember, there is a fine line between words, and definitions. Definitions are logical, where words are expressions.
I hope everyone has a great day. Love and truth <3
No comments:
Post a Comment