2007-10-19 10:31:00 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Neither are measurable entities, its a subjective subject and there is no definate answer. Semantics. Yes/No/Maybe.
2007-10-19 10:37:10 · answer #1 · answered by Seed Plower 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It depends on the situation since the situation can define the nature of the beginning and the end.
Sometimes, the end and the beginning are states that can't be traced with precision, so not knowing the exact lines of their territories makes it possible for these two apparently unrelated territories to be connected, even through a very vague and shallow thread.
Let's take the following situation for example: An individual is part of corporation / organization or simply part of a social group that goes in his favour. Lying is against the rules of that social setting and can result in the immediate expulsion of the individual. The individual does eventually commit the mistake and lies, but his actions aren't discovered until much later. Yes, there are negative consequences = the end. But when did the end start exactly? Did it start with the moment of the individual's actions or the moment when the actions were discovered?
The truth is that in a way, in this situation at least, the beginning of the end grew into the end of the beginning prematurely, so they are one. But they just operate on different chronological systems. It's possible for them to be connected as long as the beginning of the end exists in a premature phase and its presence is supported by the end of the beginning.
2007-10-19 11:10:30 · answer #2 · answered by Cheshire Riddle 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The end of the beginning comes before the beginning of the end.
2007-10-19 10:42:37 · answer #3 · answered by sweetshawna666 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. In a war (not WWII...Churchill beat me to that one), the first sign or evidence that the foe may/can lose, the beginning of the end, can come before their first major attack, the beginning, ends/fails.
There is no law of logic that says it can't, as the words have no direct temporal link and are phrased relatively, but it's not exactly a common thing.
It could be so in any occasion where the first sign of an eventual resolution is evident prior to the realization or completion of initial events.
Its all relative.
2007-10-19 10:48:30 · answer #4 · answered by Rafael 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no, i think that the end of the bieggining comes before the beginning of the end :D
2007-10-19 10:33:54 · answer #5 · answered by wallflower 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Here's one for you....All things happen simultaneously. The beginning and the end and everything in between happen at the same time. The concept of time is just something the human mind creates.
2007-10-19 11:36:02 · answer #6 · answered by livemoreamply 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They would happen simultaneously because the end of the beginning is also the beginning of the end.
2007-10-19 11:57:10 · answer #7 · answered by Brooklyn Avenue 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Only if the middel of the beginning contains the beginning of the middle and the the end of the middle.
2007-10-19 10:35:38 · answer #8 · answered by Little Chicken 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
no, how can the end happens before the beginning?
2007-10-19 10:46:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
no.
how can the end begin before the beginning has ended?
it just wouldn't work.
2007-10-19 11:39:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋