English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

One can just decribe not more than some self.

2006-10-05 20:37:27 · 14 answers · asked by The Knowledge Server 1 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

14 answers

What? That makes no sense.

2006-10-05 20:38:41 · answer #1 · answered by island_laddie 2 · 0 0

False statement.

A stone is not a "self" neither it is in some self.
A stone is not a part of any self.
Read below why.

Still I can describe a stone.
It is hard.
Like a hard nut to crack.
It is a non living thing.
If you are hit by a stone you can be hurt.
Bigger the stone and higher the momentum of stone
hitting you higher are the changces that you will be hurt more.

It does not have any self since it can't perceive, feel, experience or think. Neither can it reproduce.

So no self for a stone.

But I just described the stone.

So I described more than some self.
Note that a stone by itself is not a part of any self.
Neither does it have its own self.
Hence your statemet is incorrect.

It is a false statement.

2006-10-06 04:46:59 · answer #2 · answered by James 4 · 0 0

2 points

2006-10-06 03:46:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It all depends on the rules or assumptions about the world that you establish or have been established for you that define your reality. It is like the "allegory of the cave". You can describe only what you sense or experience. If you cannot sense it how can you describe it? You can only make guesses and guesses are good only for making hypothesis.

2006-10-06 04:52:16 · answer #4 · answered by cinattra 2 · 0 0

I know what you mean. You are 100 and 1 percent correct. It is so deep that no one seems to understand here. No point asking such deep questions in this forum - people are shallow as someone once said in this very forum.

2006-10-06 04:31:38 · answer #5 · answered by small 7 · 0 0

Far from correct, it makes no sense at all

2006-10-06 03:39:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

self exists so far the existence concerns.

2006-10-08 11:04:37 · answer #7 · answered by prince47 7 · 0 0

Nope, that's wrong, cause human can discribe animals, trees and any other things [alife or death, exist or no].

2006-10-06 06:09:04 · answer #8 · answered by Joxie 2 · 0 0

Are you...

are you kidding me?

What does this even mean?

It's either really profound or really effing stupid.

I just can't figure out which it is.

2006-10-06 03:44:21 · answer #9 · answered by Alyssa Dee 2 · 0 0

Needs work because I don't understan what you're saying.

2006-10-06 03:39:36 · answer #10 · answered by David M 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers