The thing that can never be represented by another thing is not an idea.
One thing can represent another thing only if there is equivalence among their ideas.
2006-10-19 21:31:05 · 21 answers · asked by The Knowledge Server 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
To quote the great Sherlock Holmes... "what ineffable twaddle."
The first is obviously incorrect as it is a self contradictory double-negative statement. It was also conclusively disproven by Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason.
The second statement is also incorrect, as non-equivalent representation lies at the core of all great art and science. Anyone schooled in epistemology knows this.
Invariantology is pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
2006-10-19 23:43:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dear Samlyn,
I decided to answer this question because you look beautiful in Saree. That is God's Beauty.
There is one more question like yours just below your question.
My answer to your question is.
There is no error in both the statements. I have read Swami Vivekananda's "Gyan Yoga". There was a similar Idea in that book.
What I understood from that book is as follows.
Your first statement is a fundamental truth. It applies to evalution of Human Wisdom. We can not know any idea unless it is already within us. When We come across a new thing or idea or information we categorise it according to our previous experince or knowledge. Unless we do not categorise it we can not say that we knew it. Thus everthing which we consider new is to be understood ( you used word "represented" here) in context of a similar old idea (in our mind). Otherwise that new thing or idea can not be said to be known to us. this applies to all human knowledge. This also implies that everything to be known or represented is already know to us.
I still doubt that I have made my point clear. There are several other statements like this.
1. For any thing to be there at present it must have existed before ( always). in some or other form.
2. Two thing can not be limitless together. ( for example between space and time one thing must be limited to make another thing endless)
If you try to read your both the statements in light of my above mentioned paragraphs. I hope my idea has been represented by an idea in your mind.
Yes Samlyn your second statement infact makes me confident of my views. One thing can be known ( represented) only if there is an equivalent idea in your mind.
I shall be glad if your ideas can be represented by My ideas and My ideas can be represented by you ideas.
Off the context never mentioned anything. Everything in this world is interlinked or interchained.
So again It is nice to read such a question from a beautiful godess
2006-10-24 01:19:22 · answer #2 · answered by Deve 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes there is certainly an error. This concept has different view according to different people ,situation and especially different subject.you can have an idea of something opposite to you even without any other thing. you can for example express love for someone without just nothing. The opposite person can understand that love of yours without no love for you. a thing represented without a thing but still an idea received by the other person that there is love . Accepting it or not is souly his own opinion.This example goes again for the second statement. The first person has love ,the opposite person gets the idea but that does not mean his idea is of loving that person . He know the first person loves him but he might be loving some other person.so they do represent each other inspite of no equivalance among their soul ideas. Thats my thought !.so probably few of the anwers too over here represent the same thing inspite different ideas in different brains .
2006-10-21 17:16:41 · answer #3 · answered by kirtik 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would have thought that statement one was in error because a thing that can never be represented by another thing can only be an idea
2006-10-20 04:56:46 · answer #4 · answered by Carol M 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why not, a thing need not be represented by another thing necessarily, abstract , intangible things are unique in itself in many instances.
The next statement is dependent on the criteria for ideas, and also levels of tolerance of equivalence.
2006-10-20 08:23:36 · answer #5 · answered by Spiritualseeker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes...
an idea cannot represent a thing... and one thing cannot represent another thing solely based upon equivalence among their ideas....
there isn't a right or wrong answer to this sort of question. it is all about the thought process & whether the answer you come up with makes sense in the end. hence, philosophy... thought processes...
2006-10-20 04:43:40 · answer #6 · answered by christy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
According to me this is correct:
One thing can represent another, only if there is equivalence among their ideas.
2006-10-20 04:49:14 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
here, in the second sentence, it deals abt. two things so the equivalence must be between their ideas and not among. Among is used only for a group of things
2006-10-21 01:51:52 · answer #8 · answered by HARINI S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think here are grammar error but there might be some judgment errors such as you don't actually know the meaning of the idea which is a new thing that someone invented for him, because he doesn't know about that thing.
2006-10-20 04:38:53 · answer #9 · answered by liquiD 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
first both are incorrect, decide what is an idea,and what is a solution.
what is a true statement,i have an idea you are talking rubbish.
i dont know if that is true or false.
i suspect but cannot conclusively prove you are ,because i have no way of proving the claim.
an idea is just a collection of thoughts wether true or false the thoughts are still an idea.
2006-10-20 04:44:57 · answer #10 · answered by lefang 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋