English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

1. Since wholes include you, you would be thought as part.
2. Since parts compose you, you would be thought as whole.
3. Since differences distinguish you, you would be thought as equivalence.
4. Since equivalences equate you, you would be thought as uniqueness.
5. Since limits limit you, you would be thought as link.
6. Since links link you, you would be thought as limit.
7. Since influences influence you, you would be thought as sensation.
8. Since sensations sense you, you would be thought as influence.
9. Since derivatives inherit you, you would be thought as origin.
10. Since origins originate you, you would be thought as derivative.
11. Since conditions condition you, you would be thought as rule.
12. Since rules rule you, you would be thought as condition.
13. Since fulfillments fulfill you, you would be thought as intent.
14. Since intents intend you, you would be thought as fulfillment.
Which one is the incoherent statement?

2007-09-28 17:38:30 · 7 answers · asked by The Knowledge Server 1 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

7 answers

That is the problem with incomprehensible statements- your eyes glaze over and your brain goes automatically into the "ignore this " mode. This makes it difficult to analyze and grade the effort properly.

All of them.

2007-09-28 17:53:22 · answer #1 · answered by QuiteNewHere 7 · 0 0

10, 12, 13

2007-10-02 17:38:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

In the absence of a medical, defense or sustenance purpose all those statements are incoherent.

'5. Since limits limit you, you would be thought as link.'

5. Since limits limit you, you would be thought as measure, quantity, quantification, quantifier, qualifier.


I am too tired to go through all of them..

2007-09-29 14:49:39 · answer #3 · answered by Psyengine 7 · 1 0

The inference in them all is flawed. In each, a stipulation is made, then the opposite is stated as fact, when it is not necessarily logical to infer the opposite of the stipulation. What i don't quite get is why the term "incoherent" is used. I think a better term may be "irreconcilable."

2007-10-02 16:50:59 · answer #4 · answered by M O R P H E U S 7 · 0 0

All of them, since they seem to be the incoherent babblings of someone who thinks only in terms of absolutes.

Doug

2007-09-28 17:44:06 · answer #5 · answered by doug_donaghue 7 · 1 0

I think I'm going to start incoherently babbling because I'm so confused.

2007-09-28 17:51:54 · answer #6 · answered by julia 6 · 1 0

th eone people like to say,
but i got it today
and i hope in society it will stay

2007-09-28 17:47:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers