1. Anything distinguishable from self is non-self.
2. Non-self is not without self.
By combining 1 & 2,
3. Anything distinguishable from self is not without self.
Repharasing 3,
4. Anything distinguishable from self must be a self.
Ilustrative diagram at:
http://www.geocities.com/p.sivashanmugam/untitled.gif
2006-09-28 00:31:13 · 11 answers · asked by The Knowledge Server 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
#2 is false
2006-09-28 00:33:50 · answer #1 · answered by n0body 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Self is not a universal characteristic, but is a universal principle. So, therefor, it is a word misunderstanding - what you distinguish from is the observers self, but what is distinguished must not be without it's personal self. So 4. is correct - Anything distinguishable from self (observer) must be a self (general principle).
2006-09-28 07:39:07 · answer #2 · answered by Uros I 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think your Point 2, is where this falls down. Why is non-self not without self? If it has self it is a different self to yours.
2006-09-28 07:35:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you accept 1 and 2 as premesis, then conclusion 3 is correct. The problem is in your "rephrasing" - you don't rephrase in logic.
Not being without self is not the same as being self.
2006-09-28 07:40:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
surely in para 4, you cannot distinguish something from itself, if you are comparing it to itself, they will be the same, therefore in distinguishable.
You are also saying that self, if different, is self, which is impossible, because if self is not self, then it is non-self, and therefor not self in the first place
boom!
Jamie
2006-09-28 07:36:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In your logic, you are equating being and having. Not self can be "not without" self without being self. To be "not without" is to be "with", or even to "have", but is not to "be" That is why, in my opinion #4 is wrong.
2006-09-28 07:50:50 · answer #6 · answered by metatron 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your second point (2. Non-self is not without self) is wrong. It should read "Non-self is without self."
2006-09-28 07:34:21 · answer #7 · answered by rumplestiltskin12357 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the true asnwer here is that a non self is that a self was a self at one time but became a self to itself because the self had no self to be self...i think thats right ..yaya thats right self is a self any way you look at your self ....
2006-09-28 07:42:55 · answer #8 · answered by punkinhead0 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Take a good hard look at yourself! There must be an answer there! :-)
2006-09-29 08:34:35 · answer #9 · answered by renclrk 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing wrong. It all makes sense to me because I'm insane ;)
2006-09-28 08:42:13 · answer #10 · answered by Harry thePotter 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋