Is this a logically correct statement?

Question

Whatever is not as 'part, whole, equivalence, uniqueness, limit, link, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent and fulfillment' is not what unity is.

Answer 1

That statement is a correct but very limited statement. It is like saying the Tuesday is any day that is NOT Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday. The statement is correct but more or less meaningless, when taken out of context.

Answer 2

Everything's a part of unity. Because everything else is a derived or mutated subset of unity. By mutated, means rules / sensations not even thought of, some might even seem the opposite of unity, but in the end all are logically correlated to unity. The above statement holds true at a more micro level, where we know this is good or that's bad. But at a macro level, it does not make sense or not true..

Answer 3

Logically it's correct, but awkward.

You've got two instances of 'not' in that sentence - one before the 'part, whole...' piece, and one before 'unity,' making it a double negation. So what you are saying is then:

Whatever is as 'part, whole, equivalence, uniqueness, limit, link, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent and fulfillment' is what unity is.

In other words:

unity = {part, whole, equivalence, uniqueness, limit, link, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent and fulfillment}.

If I were to write your sentence in my own words, I would write this:

Unity is partial, wholesome, equivalent, unique, limited, linked, influenced, sensed, original, derived, ruled, conditioned, intentional and fulfilling.

Whether it's true or not is another story :).

Answer 4

No it's not logical. you got me confused by mixing up different grammatical use. you have adjective, adverbs, and nouns all together that makes it so hard to see what you're trying to point at. If I were you, i would have used adjectives or adjective clauses . you're basically asking in other words, what characterizes unity.e.g try 'whatever is not as 'part,whole,equivalent,unique,limited,linked,influential'/influenced,sensational,ruled/ruling,conditional,intentive and fulfilled" is not what unity is. I worked on this for a little bit, sorry but i have to point this out

Answer 5

well I think your statement is a fragment. It's not complete.

Maybe if I rearrange it, it would be like Whatever is not like 'part, whole, equivalence, uniqueness, limit, link, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent, and fulfillment of...--the statement lacks something-- is not what unity is.

Answer 6

The structure of the statement is right but it doesnt make any sense at all. You can search for a better idea about what unity is.

Answer 7

I wouldn't think so...because we'll always find other notions to put in those brackets, to widen your statement. Or we should leave them and forget about logic, when we speak of unity. We should forget about the logical sometimes.

Answer 8

My Dad is an English teacher, and he says leave out the "as".

As for the semantics, I believe that reality can have no limit and still be unified. Due to the link.

Answer 9

Different cultures and people understand and organize thoughts & language differently. Over thousand & thousands of years people have adapted to different parts of the world as they traveled into distinkt regions, each environment challanging the human mind in different ways. As people adapted to the environment they were faced with, their minds adapted too with the tasks they need to preform.

It makes perfect logical sense to me as understand English. But I am Native American, and we did not have written language at all, except for pictures, lol.

Answer 10

Logically I suppose, but you've covered nearly everything which means everything is logically part of unity.