Thought #1:
"Look at that mean old *****. It's hard to imagine that she used to be a sweet little girl."
Thought #2:
"Look at that sweet little girl. It's hard to imagine that she'll be a mean old *****."
Both of them seem symmetrical in time to me and they both express the same idea, albeit from two different perspective. So are they really equivalent?
2007-08-27 11:57:58 · 10 answers · asked by Belzetot 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Heh, Yahoo censored "b-i-t-c-h"... They're such prudes. :P
2007-08-27 11:59:30 · update #1
yes they are equivalent in a ying-yang kind of a way, It's also a little bit of a parodox, they do mean the same thing because it seems to refer to same person, in thought one we must assume that the mean old ***** was a sweet girl because that is all it states and vise-versa!
2007-08-27 14:37:33 · answer #1 · answered by Donaldo P 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They are not equivalent because in #1, she WAS sweet and in #2, she IS sweet. Thought #1 is true because it refers to the past and the present. Thought #2 may or may not be true because it refers to the present and the future. The future is unknown.
If both thoughts are equivalent, then there is an assumption that all sweet little girls turn into a mean old *****. If there is no assumption (assumptions can be proven wrong), then they are not equivalent.
2007-08-27 14:05:57 · answer #2 · answered by coconutty beanz xD 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, they are not symmetrical. Leaving aside the sentiment and the blatant cynicism, the first sentence has the possibility of reflecting an objective reality (although labeling someone a ***** obviously has a strong subjective element to it); maybe an unbiased panel would agree that like the recently deceased Queen of Mean she is indeed a five-letter word. The second sentence is totally speculative and evinces a radically pessimistic view of humankind. It is in no way and can never be a statement of fact; therefore the two sentences are NOT symmetrical.
2007-08-27 12:09:57 · answer #3 · answered by Hispanophile 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I do not think that "thought #2" is sustainable. If someone is sweet when you have your first, and probably only impression of them, how do you know that that sweet child will and up "a mean old anything", you don't, so your argument is not valid. For thought number 1, that may be true and provable, but thought number 2 just doesn't make sense. Thought number 2 is possible, but not probable.
2007-08-27 12:07:30 · answer #4 · answered by Hot Coco Puff 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes they are both based on illusion, so they are only temporary situations as is being young or old. The fact is we are not this material body, IE; Race, color, nationality, Religion, mind, intellect, senses, job, etc. We are all eternal spirit souls, part and parcel of the Supreme Soul, also known as Krishna, Allah, Jehovah, Vishnu, etc. We never die, only this mortal body dies.This material world is not our real home, it is called Maya (illusion) and is temporary and full of misery, only one fourth of the souls come here, and the rest are enjoying blissful eternal loving relationships with our Maker named above. Those who are intelligent, take up the process of self realization (Bhakti Yoga) which gives one real peace, happiness and reality. Then at the end of life they can return to the eternal Kingdom where there is no more birth, death, old age, or disease and be eternally happy. When we understand all things in truth we will not be in illusion and we will see the truth of all things as they truly are.
For info. Go to harekrishnatemple.com Read Bhagavad Gita- As it is by Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada asitis.com you can read it on line.
2007-08-27 13:02:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
i think they are different in their course (path), which in my opinion DOES make a difference. because it implies that the girl in the first thought is gonna get worse and the the girl in thought #2 getting better.
and another philosophical statement you'd want to think about is the line from rent "there's no day but today." sure the past is at one point in time "real" but what really exists is the present. talking about the past is all theory.
2007-08-27 12:10:17 · answer #6 · answered by v00mee 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Are you emotionally related to him? as quickly as I say the be conscious candy, does his face pop into your head or does your boyfriend's? AND in case you think of it is dishonest, it truly is. It potential you sense to blame. Doi. he's probable no longer in basic terms a chum, because of the fact why would you flow on line to seem for a chum? fairly, except your truly lonely, you're probable finding for a guy that'll fill the spot of your away boyfriend. attempt speaking on your boyfriend extra, because of the fact your on line dating ought to A) be risky. do you even understand the guy? and B) eliminate out of your dating including your boyfriend.
2016-12-12 13:13:53 · answer #7 · answered by burnham 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. #1 is judgmental and condemning.
#2 is pure speculation maybe based on the speaker's arrogance.
2007-08-27 16:01:48 · answer #8 · answered by Ahmad H 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
one refers to the past and may be true.
the second reference is to future expectation may not become true and therefore not identical
2007-08-27 12:05:55 · answer #9 · answered by venkataramanan t 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That perspectivally they are not equivalent, is a rational analysis.
2007-08-27 12:13:24 · answer #10 · answered by Theron Q. Ramacharaka Panchadasi 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋