1.You are not a part if nothing contains you.
2. You cannot be a part if nothing contains you.
Which one is grammatically appropriate?
Is there any other better way to state this?
2007-09-25 21:47:06 · 4 answers · asked by The Knowledge Server 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Sorry, but there is another problem from the start with that statement. It is false and misleading.
For, you do not necessarily need to be contained, either spiritually or phisically, to be part of something such as an idea, a religion, a political opinion, or else.
YOU do decide to be part of something; inedependantly of exterior factors, advices, points of view, decision, or opinion.
2007-09-25 21:59:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would probably use the word "component" instead of "part"... simply because "part" is more vague.
As the first person said - both of these seem false 100% of the time... what context does this have?
2007-09-26 11:45:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I am the totality, the total existence, all that is is me, then I am a part of nothing, I am a sum of parts related only to its self.
2007-09-26 22:37:39 · answer #3 · answered by Psyengine 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They both sound okay to me. I get the point: if you are a part of something, part of that something is you, but if there is no thing that you ARE a part of, you are not a part. :-> We're all parts :->
2007-09-26 05:28:56 · answer #4 · answered by ♥True love waits♥ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋