Im Neither, Nor "Neither".

@No0ne,

Apply Occam's razor to Buridan's A$$ LOL!

Seriously though. We have two hypotheses offered to explain a given phenomena (i.e. a good person and a bad person as a person). We have to ask if it is reasonable to accept the simplest one that makes the fewest unsupported assumptions. We have a good person and a bad person. Each is a person, so what matters is the litmus test to determine the value of good and bad. In my opinion, it is a relative matter? meaning that what's good is bad for some people and what's bad is good for other people.

There is in a sense a center split in the two notions of good and evil because it itself is a relative question. Is there a person that is neither? Why not, we can call him/her an extreme relativist, an over-rationalizer.

Now we have the paradox of a split decision of one person(the extreme relativest/over-rationalizer) between two contraries, what becomes of this neutral person who can contradict two equal yet conflicting thoughts at every turn ad infinitum? Burridan's A$$ happens.

Burridan's A$$, influenced by William of Occam's pupil jean Burridan, gives us a possible outcome for this split-neutral man. Picture a donkey in between two haystacks. This donkey is much like the split-neutral man, unable to decide over good or evil because they are both relative to the other. The donkey, torn between favoring one haystack over the other because they are the same cannot make a choice. The donkey does nothing and starves to death. In the case of the donkey, there was no reason to choose the one over the other, to make an irrational choice over a rational choice, so the donkey, being the upright, logical, and philosophical donkey that it was died. Obviously, we have to make a choice?which logically can be seen as illogical in a wider context becuase we end up favoring one over the other of the same thing..

The question should then be? is it good or evil that is the rational choice from an inherently illogical pre-choice?.

@VideCorSpoon,

as a non educated lay philosopher i find these exercises bewildering,is there purpose on pondering on the impossible? I can undertsand evil or good or a good man that does evil or an evil man that does good but a man who is neither..HIS DEAD.I am in need of education.

@xris,

To a point, pondering the impossible is in a sense philosophy. Philosophy is a good deal separated from the empirical sciences like biology, physics, mathematics, etc. because it has taken all the unresolved issues in those empirical sciences and opened them up to a rationalist system that is not limited by finite rules. Philosophy entails impossibility as one of its primary tenets.

But I don't know if you ever could understand good or evil, or even a good man, evil man, or even a man. These issues are still highly debatable in the philosophical arena. A really simple solution to the question; "is there a person that is neither good nor bad" is perhaps a person who is suffering from indecision.

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Seriously though. We have two hypotheses offered to explain a given phenomenon

Fixed

I dont think you meant all phenomena but rather A single phenomenon, right?

@VideCorSpoon,

Yet it be "neither" NEITHER!.( Not the object that its neither of, but i mean its neither "neither")

Yet, now the concept of nothingness can be completly understood, for nothingness is neither "neither".

(*note, Im implying that its neither "neither," and not implying that its neither the neither of the object that it is neither of, mainly why people get confused.)

Some people will allways hit a :brickwall: when it comes to understanding fully what nothingness is.
:a-thought:
...:detective: yet the absolute oppisite of everything is nothingness, and somthing that is neither "neither" its self, is the absolute oppisite of what everything is.

@No0ne,

NoOne,

LOL! Of course! It all makes sense now! How could I have been so blind to not see what was so plainly visible. It is neither NEITHER, not neither the neither's neither. I was lost in deep philosophical apathy until I read those illuminating lines of non-existence explained through double negation! The Indian metaphysical conception of nothingness? out the window. The presupposition of something to suppose nothing? to the curb. The concept of good and evil has no relevancy neither! Get it?

That's the infamous DDOOR paradox for ya!

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Apply Occam's razor to Buridan's A$$ LOL!

Seriously though. We have two hypotheses offered to explain a given phenomena (i.e. a good person and a bad person as a person). We have to ask if it is reasonable to accept the simplest one that makes the fewest unsupported assumptions. We have a good person and a bad person. Each is a person, so what matters is the litmus test to determine the value of good and bad. In my opinion, it is a relative matter? meaning that what's good is bad for some people and what's bad is good for other people.

There is in a sense a center split in the two notions of good and evil because it itself is a relative question. Is there a person that is neither? Why not, we can call him/her an extreme relativist, an over-rationalizer.

Now we have the paradox of a split decision of one person(the extreme relativest/over-rationalizer) between two contraries, what becomes of this neutral person who can contradict two equal yet conflicting thoughts at every turn ad infinitum? Burridan's A$$ happens.

Burridan's A$$, influenced by William of Occam's pupil jean Burridan, gives us a possible outcome for this split-neutral man. Picture a donkey in between two haystacks. This donkey is much like the split-neutral man, unable to decide over good or evil because they are both relative to the other. The donkey, torn between favoring one haystack over the other because they are the same cannot make a choice. The donkey does nothing and starves to death. In the case of the donkey, there was no reason to choose the one over the other, to make an irrational choice over a rational choice, so the donkey, being the upright, logical, and philosophical donkey that it was died. Obviously, we have to make a choice?which logically can be seen as illogical in a wider context becuase we end up favoring one over the other of the same thing..

The question should then be? is it good or evil that is the rational choice from an inherently illogical pre-choice?.

The concept of good and bad can be understood by relating to the concept of up and down while in outer space, for both be only what you say they be, for this is what they are and why they are what they are.

Yet, for example,

The international space station represents a system and up and down represent good and bad.

The designer of the space station dictates what is up and what is down.

The space stations prefromace and purpose is underminded or hinderd when it is used in the oppisite mannor that it was designed to be used in.

Yet, if I was to make a space station that is a absolute oppisite of another space station, the people dwelling in each space station will tend to never accept what the over space station see's as up and down...

So, basicaly good and bad can be translated to,

1.What gives to the purpose.
2.What takes from the purpose.

1.A bad action will take from the purpose of the space station, and therefore result in a action and reaction of negitive effects in preformance of the space station.

2.A good action will give to the purpose of the space station, and therefore result in a action and reaction of positive effects in the preformance of the space station.

3.A neither action will not give or take from the purpose of the space station, and therefore rusults in no action or reaction effects in the preformance of the space station.

What has made the concept of Good & Bad aka evil... so complex is there are so meany eye's which try to behold what is up and what is down.

Yet its allways in the eye of the creator.

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

NoOne,

LOL! Of course! It all makes sense now! How could I have been so blind to not see what was so plainly visible. It is neither NEITHER, not neither the neither's neither. I was lost in deep philosophical apathy until I read those illuminating lines of non-existence explained through double negation! The Indian metaphysical conception of nothingness? out the window. The presupposition of something to suppose nothing? to the curb. The concept of good and evil has no relevancy neither! Get it?

That's the infamous DDOOR paradox for ya!

Everything can be related to anything to understand that thing, yet the paradox of neither "neither" is the oppisite of such, for it can only be related to its self or nothingness, since when you apply it to another concept such as the concept of good and bad, it applies a diffrent meaning that it once did, this is due to the english language, and thats why you didnt get it the first time Very Happy

untill I dis-implied it from all relations, and said it be "neither NEITHER, not the object that its neither of, but I mean its neither "neither", and related it to its self, which be nothingness.

This paradox is created from are minds using the english language, and are brains using its own, people have a "click" moment once they figure it out, for this is due to the brain having a gap in unknown information caused by the flaw in the english language, and it being filled. (Relating to "nothingness" helps to make it click)

(*Note, Your comments where very insightfull and Im glad that you posted them, I created a post called "What It Is" which relates to the your converstation which was created from the flaw of relation of that concept which led to a mis-perception of what I was trying to realy ment.)

(*Note please dont relate this post to the concept of "good" & "bad" and the neither of the to, since that is the related to the concept of the neutral of the neutral, for such is the oppisite of the concept of neither "neither".)

(*Note, D.D.O.O.R stands for Dualism Duality Of Oppisite Reality, its a kind of formula that I created to reveal oppisites in reality by means of 8fold "aka" dualsim of duality dictation, I revealed the first method of using the Ddoor in my blog, yet I have deleted it, since I have choosen to hold back the release date of the formula's full structer and methods of use to a another date.)

@No0ne,

No0ne wrote:

Yet it be "neither" NEITHER!.( Not the object that its neither of, but i mean its neither "neither")

Yet, now the concept of nothingness can be completly understood, for nothingness is neither "neither".

(*note, Im implying that its neither "neither," and not implying that its neither the neither of the object that it is neither of, mainly why people get confused.)

Some people will allways hit a :brickwall: when it comes to understanding fully what nothingness is.
:a-thought:
...:detective: yet the absolute oppisite of everything is nothingness, and somthing that is neither "neither" its self, is the absolute oppisite of what everything is.

The existent can be spoken, the nonexistent cannot be spoken. Therefore, nothingness cannot be spoken. The question "What is nothing?" renders the question unanswerable as any notion conjured is something.

A common misconception is to create a dichotomy between nothing and something. Simply put, "Nothing" is an abstract concept that humans cannot experience and any attempt to ascertain through logic becomes futile. Neither "Neither" is "Nothing", just semantics. The fact you've constructed another algorithm with which to derive the word "Nothing" does not mean you fully understand nothingness.

For to fully understand nothingness, you wouldn't be understanding at all.

@No0ne,

When you understand everything, there is this 'nothingness' left to be understood and
if nothingness cannot be spoken than it means i didn't understand anything at all?

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

In the case of the donkey, there was no reason to choose the one over the other, to make an irrational choice over a rational choice, so the donkey, being the upright, logical, and philosophical donkey that it was died.

In reality there would be a chance variation like the wind pushing the donkey slightly towards one haystack, or something similar. (At least that's what Peter Norvig tells us.)

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare wrote:

In reality there would be a chance variation like the wind pushing the donkey slightly towards one haystack, or something similar. (At least that's what Peter Norvig tells us.)

But in logic, the sky could be purple and unicorns could roam the earth devouring small kittens. Truth functional deductive logic functions like that (for the most part). Usually in these philosophical analogies though, the ceteris parabus principle (all things being the same) applies. It's not that the particulars are not important, but in the case of the paradox, they are immaterial when you look at the logic of the paradox.

As for Peter Norvig? Peter Norvig says many things. LOL! Just kidding! To tell the truth, I have never heard of Peter Norvig. From what I understand, he is a computer programmer?

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

But in logic, the sky could be purple and unicorns could roam the earth devouring small kittens. Truth functional deductive logic functions like that (for the most part). Usually in these philosophical analogies though, the ceteris parabus principle (all things being the same) applies. It's not that the particulars are not important, but in the case of the paradox, they are immaterial when you look at the logic of the paradox.

As for Peter Norvig? Peter Norvig says many things. LOL! Just kidding! To tell the truth, I have never heard of Peter Norvig. From what I understand, he is a computer programmer?

He wrote the seminal undergraduate text on artificial intelligence, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach.

My own take on the Buridan's ass paradox is that there are really two actions, not three. One is 'take one of the haystacks'. The other is 'do nothing'. Obviously the first one has more utility.

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Burridan's A$$, influenced by William of Occam's pupil jean Burridan, gives us a possible outcome for this split-neutral man. Picture a donkey in between two haystacks. This donkey is much like the split-neutral man, unable to decide over good or evil because they are both relative to the other. The donkey, torn between favoring one haystack over the other because they are the same cannot make a choice. The donkey does nothing and starves to death.

I have always been unimpressed by this so-called paradox. Is it a statement about the real world? Clearly not; such a situation could never arise in reality. Is it a useful theoretical argument? No; it is simply a tautology, because if there is nothing at all that draws the donkey towards one haystack rather than the other, it is necessarily true that it will not choose either one. If it is not moved (by some asymmetry) towards one, it will not move towards one! A true but empty statement.

@ACB,

Odenskrigare,

That's an interesting approach to the paradox. The dilemma I see in the paradox is that because the haystacks on either side of the donkey are exactly the same (though highly unlikely, but this is a logical paradox). I think we both see the paradox in the same light, but from different directions. From what I gather, you would state that there are only two actions to take, picking one of the stacks or not picking any. This is the dilemma. How do you choose between two of the same thing? Logically (and the basis of the paradox rests in logic), you could not choose one of two exact things (in a logical instance such as this? well you could, but that would defeat the notion of the paradox). They are in essence both the same thing. It is the basis of tautology. P = PvP and PvP = P or P = P&P and PvP = P.

ACB,

Why be unimpressed by something that was never implied that it was a real world scenario? This paradox cuts deep into the rationalist mindset and forgoes the empirical baggage that accompanies modern science. But the whole point about this paradox is not that it is real world scenario. It is a logical improbability? a logical theory whose outcome is problematic.

But I do agree with you, it is a tautology. It may be simple, but the whole point of the paradox is to underline the point of a logical inevitability within the closed system in which the donkey is being analyzed. This is how people understand the problematic accounts that arise in logic. Silly? Yes. Unneeded? No.

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Why be unimpressed by something that was never implied that it was a real world scenario? This paradox cuts deep into the rationalist mindset and forgoes the empirical baggage that accompanies modern science. But the whole point about this paradox is not that it is real world scenario. It is a logical improbability? a logical theory whose outcome is problematic.

But surely it would only be problematic if it were a real world scenario. Considered purely as a logical theory, it is not problematic or paradoxical at all; indeed, it is necessarily true. It is like saying that if a pencil is balanced on its sharpened tip and there is absolutely nothing to make it lean away from the vertical in any particular direction, it will remain at rest on its tip. As a pure theory, how is that problematic?

Philosophy Forum

Im Neither, Nor "Neither".

Quick Links

My Account

able2know