Im Neither, Nor "Neither".

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Im Neither, Nor "Neither".

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

No0ne
 
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 07:00 pm
A Good Person.
A Bad Person.

Is there a person that is neither?

And if there is a person that is neither Good or Bad, Is there a person that is neither, nor "neither"?

A lovly DDOOR paradox.

Whats out side the:whistling:Theme?
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 12:48 pm
@No0ne,
 
xris
 
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 01:12 pm
@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.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 04:06 pm
@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.
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 07:03 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:
Seriously though. We have two hypotheses offered to explain a given phenomenon


Fixed Smile

I dont think you meant all phenomena but rather A single phenomenon, right?
 
No0ne
 
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 07:06 pm
@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.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 10:06 pm
@No0ne,
 
No0ne
 
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 01:29 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:



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.
 
No0ne
 
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 02:17 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:


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.)
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 28 Jan, 2009 03:08 am
@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.
 
grasshopper
 
Reply Wed 28 Jan, 2009 02:28 pm
@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?
 
odenskrigare
 
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 02:47 pm
@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.)
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 04:42 pm
@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
 
odenskrigare
 
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 05:24 pm
@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


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.
 
ACB
 
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 06:10 pm
@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.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 06:32 pm
@ACB,
Odenskrigare,ACB,
 
ACB
 
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 07:28 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:


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?
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Im Neither, Nor "Neither".
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/22/2020 at 05:58:53