1. Anything distinguishable from self is not without self.
2. Anything distinguishable from self is must also be a self.
2006-09-27 22:48:39 · 7 answers · asked by The Knowledge Server 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
Those are conclusions to arguments. You can't know if they followed logic correctly unless you include the major and minor premises, or whatever form of argument preceded the conclusions.
2006-09-28 00:19:33 · answer #1 · answered by sixgun 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The first one made sense to me. The meaning I got was - if you say something is distinguishable from self it does mean "without self".
The 2nd sentence had no meaning for me.
2006-09-27 22:54:41 · answer #2 · answered by girl from oz 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The first statement is more llogical than the second. One must be open, alive and seen before one can be distinguished from themselves... I hope that makes sense
2006-09-27 23:02:05 · answer #3 · answered by Veronica C 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there is not any such component as a logically maximum appropriate fact, purely a logically maximum appropriate argument (it is, an inference created from statements). in spite of this, i think of your first fact is fake (or badly formulated): for it is not a branch between people who *have faith* the international would be divided into 2 communities of human beings and people who do not, yet between people who *understand* the international would be so divided and people who do not. on your fact itself proves that it quite is available. additionally, any genuine looking guy or woman will see that the international would be so divided whilst they pay attention your first fact. Your 2d fact is self-contradictory and as a result meaningless. EDIT: with regards to your first fact: in case you state this to a guy or woman who would not yet understand the international would be so divided, and in case you employ the be conscious "understand", they are going to probable locate you boastful: for they don't have faith that it quite is real. it is truthfully shown to be real, in spite of the undeniable fact that: via dividing the international into people who're you (this would be a collection with one member) and people who're not you (a collection of roughly 7 billion contributors). The question despite if it quite is *clever* to divide the international in this type has not even been raised yet, of direction.
2016-10-18 03:07:33 · answer #4 · answered by carrera 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The second statement is not understandable !
The first is too difficult for me.
2006-09-27 23:11:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
im sure they are if you say so
2006-09-27 22:50:51 · answer #6 · answered by sleepwalker69 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
NO! definitely not!?!
2006-09-27 23:21:59 · answer #7 · answered by mad_sci_123 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋