The following can be never be defined. Why?

Question

1. The parts without a whole,
2. the wholes without a part,
3. the differences without an equivalence,
4. the equivalences without a difference,
5. the links without a limit,
6. the limits without a link,
7. the influences without a sensation,
8. the sensations without an influence,
9. the derivatives without an origin,
10. the origins without a derivative,
11. the conditions without a rule,
12. the rules without a condition,
13. the fulfillments without an intent, and
14. the intents without a fulfillment
can never be defined. Why?

Answer 1

Kid, I am not going to do your homework for you. That is why you have a book. Pick it up and read it. You may actually learn something.

Answer 2

They may be defined negatively as in mental illness, unknowings (as in a child) or contingent and temporary...

example:

1. The parts without a whole, Identified somethings detected.
2. the wholes without a part, the outline or perceived boundary of an unknown or unidentified thing.
3. the differences without an equivalence, formal operative failure in cognitive process
4. the equivalences without a difference, a thing in its self is same for its self and that proposition needs no proof; it is self evidently true
5. the links without a limit, infinity concept needs not measure
6. the limits without a link, unnecessary
7. the influences without a sensation, objective reality in absence of self, retrospected discovery
8. the sensations without an influence, ignoring influence for purpose or ignoring influence for a purpose
9. the derivatives without an origin, one over infinity of a duration is less time than necessary for any creation
10. the origins without a derivative, same as 9
11. the conditions without a rule, 'condition' equals 'rule' not 'condition' for 'rule', i.e. they are synonym for each other
12. the rules without a condition, gravity is unconditional; it is not an option for human choice or rejection
13. the fulfillment's without an intent, given being
14. the intents without a fulfillment, a fact of life

Answer 3

Because they are examples of binary thinking that leads people into endless traps.

Answer 4

vapid, inane semantic drivel...

how sad

circumlocutious logic contains and is contained by its own circumlocutious logic

as the German idiom goes....
the mountain has struggled and produced a mouse

Answer 5

Disagree.
One part can be defined with reference to another. One whole can be defined with reference to another whole... etc. etc.

Answer 6

because they cannot be quantified, also they are ideas and ideas can never be defined it is dynamic.

Answer 7

because they go together, they do not work without eachother.

Answer 8

good old cheesy answer? everything has a reason and a purpose... lol.

Answer 9

>> I think it's because they are paradoxes....but I could be wrong.