2006-11-14 14:11:11 · 14 answers · asked by The Knowledge Server 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
for example:
You are a part of what you have.
what you have = not you.
You are a part of not you.
You are of not you.
You must be of not you if you are to be known.
2006-11-14 14:37:49 · update #1
I am a part of what I have. Is this grammatically valid?
2006-11-14 14:59:53 · update #2
Uhhhhh.... well sounds like a paradox to me.
2006-11-14 14:30:10 · answer #1 · answered by Roman Soldier 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
believe it or not i understand the question. x is the real you and not x is the physical and or mental qualities you have. so x is not your phyical and or mental qualities it is the real you. but to know the real you or x you have to go beyond your qualities. this is what buddhists do when they meditate. they try to experience their real being, but to do so they have to strip away all the things that people usually use to define who you are.
the mind or ego is sometimes the part of a person that people think is who they are, but it isn't according to many eastern philosophies and religions. the real you is not your mind or ego, but the part of you without the mind or ego. so x = the real you and the mind or ego is not you or NOT x (but is usually identified with the real you..so x is still used, but can be ambiguous)and for x to be known it must be not x, which is the ego, in order to be known. easier to think than to say....good luck.
2006-11-15 03:57:33 · answer #2 · answered by Bogey 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe that your theory is somewhat askew...
NOT X must be known if X is to be known.
For instance, let's say that X=RED. For us to then say that objectA=X, we have to know/agree upon what is NOT RED, and further conclude that objectA does not fall into that (NOT RED) category, and thus is in fact RED.
It is impossible for X to be part of the set of NOT X.
2006-11-14 22:43:10 · answer #3 · answered by grand_admiral_jack_sparrow 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Willfully. Low suds.
2006-11-14 22:37:52 · answer #4 · answered by spongemoose 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Looks like the x got X'd out of the equation. As far as the example? My opinion is...Hates to be "you."
2006-11-15 00:42:37 · answer #5 · answered by Smahteepanties 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry the word formation: "X must be of not Y" is not grammatical.
Use symbolic logic instead of broken English:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Order_Logic
Add:
"I am a part of what I have" -- is grammatical
"I am of what I have" -- is not
2006-11-14 22:45:35 · answer #6 · answered by hq3 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
For all x: it is possible to know x if and only if x is a member of the set that contains ~x.
A(x) ((x ε domain of all domains that contain ~x) â âK(x)).
It's not possible to know anything, because there's a set {~x} which doesn't contain x.
2006-11-14 23:08:20 · answer #7 · answered by -.- 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if i get what u r asking : yes if you are talking about identification but no, if one is talking about the real X and not the X surronded by whatever else it has
2006-11-15 00:44:45 · answer #8 · answered by igottanoe 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
THAT IS THE MOST LOGICALLY INCORRECT STATEMENT I HAVE EVER HEARD. IF X IS KNOWABLE, X CANNOT BE OF NOT X. THAT AIN'T AN OPINION. THAT'S A FACT, JACK.
2006-11-15 21:28:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is this a thought experiment?
2006-11-15 01:55:52 · answer #10 · answered by Jade 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋