Anything distinguishable from self cannot be distinguished without self.
-------------------------------------------------
Anything distinguishable from self = "non self"
-------------------------------------------------
Non-self cannot be distingushed without self.
2006-09-26 22:21:27 · 14 answers · asked by The Knowledge Server 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
Nothing wrong with it as such.
It implies a clear distinction between what is self and non-self, which is not always possible in real life when describing such things as friendships and feelings, which can be shared.
Also, as stated, the 'self' must be aware and sensient for the non-self to have significance.
2006-09-26 22:28:19 · answer #1 · answered by Bart S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
At first this reads as logically true. But, logically the non-self surely can be distinguished from entities other than self. It can only be distinguishable from SELF with self available for that differentiation. But, even without self, the separate entity could still exist. It is only true that non-self cannot be distinguished FROM self without self. The non-self could still be distinguished from other entities. So, the statement is only partly true, there is a logical hole.
2006-09-27 05:45:59 · answer #2 · answered by BJD 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing is wrong with taht statement. Without knowing what self is, how can self tell if something is different or distinguishable from self. You have to have a standard or benchmark to judge against or to compare to.
Another interpretation is that the act of distiguishing can only be done by self. So, if there is no self in the frame of reference, there can't be any distiguishing going on.
To summarize {in a way}: It's all relative.
2006-09-27 05:40:02 · answer #3 · answered by quntmphys238 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Plz do not go to an english teacher or a writer! This is workable on the net in chatting or on bulletins, workgroups or blogs! This is definitely ungrammatical.
2006-09-27 05:30:37 · answer #4 · answered by abjwul 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm sorry, but I don't see anything wrong with the statement. I could be over looking it, but it sounds good to me.
2006-09-27 05:25:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ownership of the observation
2006-09-27 05:32:17 · answer #6 · answered by D 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Uhmz...alright.
2006-09-27 05:23:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
non self is not a dictionary word
2006-09-27 05:23:27 · answer #8 · answered by Simon K 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
hmm, Are we talking bout a soap or something? ehhehe
2006-09-27 05:52:37 · answer #9 · answered by Happy_hours 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are your own worst critic.
2006-09-27 05:29:08 · answer #10 · answered by Jareth 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋