Interesting post, its funny because i was talking about opposites just the other day and mentioned the same point. my idea was a little more complex because it has to do with not just opposites but understanding of opposites just because you understand the one side (blah blah blah) I will actually elaborate on the point i was talking about later when i have time. But as to your post i think it really opens the door to how everything we describe is just collective subjectivity we turn into universal truth. For what is one thing but just the lack of the described trait we gave a name too. You can make a greater point and talk about how nothing really matters or is anything unless it is in a relative sense. For what is good or evil unless it is relative to some definition we created. Or what is useful or useless unless it is in a relative sense. Ex) chuck is useless compared to maybe a motivated person but useful compared to a bum. Even so when we overall describe the word in a big picture we as society agree on some set notion that is just a collective, subjective idea that we have turned into an objective truth, even though it can never be. In the end my only real point is that not only does opposites make something exist in a sense but we also need relativity. Without these two things nothing can really manifest itself into an idea we can truly understand.
I like the post HxL. I agree with Xaos's response that whether something is useful or not (or any characteristic for that matter) depends on what you are comparing it to. Ex. X contains some characteristic when compared to Y. However, when compared to Z it is lacking said characteristic. If we quantify the characteristic we can say X has N amount of characteristic (C), Y has C < N, and Z contains C > N. Therefore, whether X is described by C does not solely depend on the amount of C X has, but the relationship of Cx to Cy, or Cz. However, this is an unrealistic example. People cannot precisely give discrete values to characteristics. Everyone's general ideas are shaped by societies views but no one's are exactly the same. In extreme cases the differences between Cx, Cy, and Cz are easy for society to decide and generally most people will agree. However, when characteristics lie in either the morally gray, or indifferent views of society, peoples individual opinions take precedence of societal views. Person A may feel that Cx>Cy>Cz while person B feels that Cz>Cx>Cy. I don't really have a point. I just thought it would be an interesting topic to elaborate on. I have a lot more I could say, but it would just be me rambling until I slowly get completely off topic. Anyway, nice post HxL.
Interesting post, its funny because i was talking about opposites just the other day and mentioned the same point. my idea was a little more complex because it has to do with not just opposites but understanding of opposites just because you understand the one side (blah blah blah) I will actually elaborate on the point i was talking about later when i have time. But as to your post i think it really opens the door to how everything we describe is just collective subjectivity we turn into universal truth. For what is one thing but just the lack of the described trait we gave a name too. You can make a greater point and talk about how nothing really matters or is anything unless it is in a relative sense. For what is good or evil unless it is relative to some definition we created. Or what is useful or useless unless it is in a relative sense. Ex) chuck is useless compared to maybe a motivated person but useful compared to a bum. Even so when we overall describe the word in a big picture we as society agree on some set notion that is just a collective, subjective idea that we have turned into an objective truth, even though it can never be. In the end my only real point is that not only does opposites make something exist in a sense but we also need relativity. Without these two things nothing can really manifest itself into an idea we can truly understand.
ReplyDeleteI like the post HxL. I agree with Xaos's response that whether something is useful or not (or any characteristic for that matter) depends on what you are comparing it to. Ex. X contains some characteristic when compared to Y. However, when compared to Z it is lacking said characteristic.
ReplyDeleteIf we quantify the characteristic we can say X has N amount of characteristic (C), Y has C < N, and Z contains C > N. Therefore, whether X is described by C does not solely depend on the amount of C X has, but the relationship of Cx to Cy, or Cz.
However, this is an unrealistic example. People cannot precisely give discrete values to characteristics. Everyone's general ideas are shaped by societies views but no one's are exactly the same. In extreme cases the differences between Cx, Cy, and Cz are easy for society to decide and generally most people will agree. However, when characteristics lie in either the morally gray, or indifferent views of society, peoples individual opinions take precedence of societal views. Person A may feel that Cx>Cy>Cz while person B feels that Cz>Cx>Cy.
I don't really have a point. I just thought it would be an interesting topic to elaborate on. I have a lot more I could say, but it would just be me rambling until I slowly get completely off topic. Anyway, nice post HxL.
ANSWER: Fertility
ReplyDelete