|
|
| Author |
Message |
flem
|
|
"is"--what is it?
| 
Aug 7 07:08 UTC 1994 |
"is"
This is one of the most confusing words in the english language. At
least, it is when you stop and think about it in the pseudophilosophical
ways that us humans tend to do. The topic I feel like debating is, can we
define the word "is" outside of our experience, whether direct or
indirect? If something, some event, some place, etc. is beyond our
ability to observe it, can we make any statements about its existence?
What I'm trying to get at is, does the word "is" really mean "as far as I
know, it is" or is "is" just "is" ?
Hopefully, someone will take the side I disagree with. This can make for
a great argument early in the morning (or late at night, depending on your
perspective).
|
| 46 responses total. |
gerund
|
|
response 1 of 46:
|
Aug 7 23:07 UTC 1994 |
If something, some event, some place, etc. is beyond our ability to observe it,
can we make any statements about its existence?
I don't think we can. We can speculate but how can we make a statement about
the existence of something if that 'something' is beyond our abilites to
gather information regarding it?
example: in terms of what IS; planet dittybop exists
it has a physical space and can be measured and observed and etc....
The thing is, at no time have I come across any evidence to support it's
existence. No mystical feelings, no scientific observations, no newspaper
articles that can be reasonably believed... no nothing.
Planet Dittybop IS, but I can make no statement about that because I have no
supporting evidence for or against the concept.
I hope my logic makes some sense.
|
carson
|
|
response 2 of 46:
|
Aug 8 01:06 UTC 1994 |
(Gerund, how could we NOT make statements about things that are not within
our realm of observation? You mention that there are things beyond our
ability to gather information about it, but even if it were within our
abilities, there would be no way to know that the gathered information
had any modicum of "truth" [there's a word!] to it.)
(Besides, you could always say, "I don't know anything about Planet
Dittybop." That's a statement itself. ;>)
|
flem
|
|
response 3 of 46:
|
Aug 8 02:43 UTC 1994 |
Yes, but can you say "Planet Dittybop exists?" without having experienced
it?
Carson, how can we make any meaningful statements about something we can't,
(at least at the moment) observe? We THINK there are more planets and
stars and whatnot out there just beyond our past light cone, but we don't
know for sure. Can we say anything about them, in terms of their existence?
I don't think so.
|
gerund
|
|
response 4 of 46:
|
Aug 8 02:54 UTC 1994 |
That's what I'm trying to say.
You HAVE to have some sort of WAY to KNOW something or it can't be known.
Carson, define truth.
|
carson
|
|
response 5 of 46:
|
Aug 8 03:05 UTC 1994 |
(a truth is something you sincerely believe to be true.)
(I'll let you define true.)
|
flem
|
|
response 6 of 46:
|
Aug 8 07:37 UTC 1994 |
What if you're wrong? is it still true?
|
carson
|
|
response 7 of 46:
|
Aug 8 08:34 UTC 1994 |
(what makes you wrong?)
(that's why I'll let someone else define true.)
|
flem
|
|
response 8 of 46:
|
Aug 8 19:08 UTC 1994 |
If I utterly, completely believe that I can fly, then it is a truth by your
definition. If I jump off the empire state building, with this truth in
mind, does it remain a truth?
|
gerund
|
|
response 9 of 46:
|
Aug 8 23:47 UTC 1994 |
I hope so... else you're gonna be pretty flat... :)
|
dang
|
|
response 10 of 46:
|
Aug 9 00:59 UTC 1994 |
which is stronger:belief, or physics?
|
brighn
|
|
response 11 of 46:
|
Aug 10 06:12 UTC 1994 |
The science of physics did not exist until there were humans to believe
that it existed. The laws which natural phenomena follow, of course,
predate human experience.
I was confused by the item heading. The "is" being referred to was
never clearly defined, even though English actually has three
completely different meanings for this word. I assume the identity
is being referred to.
But, then again, maybe the sub-part relation is meant?
|
carson
|
|
response 12 of 46:
|
Aug 10 08:13 UTC 1994 |
re #8: (yet if you stop believing that you will fly, and choose instead to
believe that every bone in your body is being shattered by the impact
of hitting cement at a speed most people don't travel on freeways,
it's no longer a truth that you will fly, correct?)
(Columbus died believing that he had discovered India. Was that not
a truth for him?)
re #11: (I think we can cover any sort of "is" that will promote discussion.
Hope that helps!)
|
jkrauss
|
|
response 13 of 46:
|
Aug 24 21:40 UTC 1994 |
is just is or is it?
sorry...
well, planet dittybop may well exist.
So THere.
|
brighn
|
|
response 14 of 46:
|
Aug 25 04:05 UTC 1994 |
Planet Dittybop must exist, because many Grexers seem to be from it.
|
carson
|
|
response 15 of 46:
|
Aug 28 19:07 UTC 1994 |
(does that mean that anything which "is" also "exists"?)
|
brighn
|
|
response 16 of 46:
|
Aug 29 04:49 UTC 1994 |
No, but anything that exists is.
|
carson
|
|
response 17 of 46:
|
Aug 29 06:29 UTC 1994 |
(ok. what else "is", then?)
|
brighn
|
|
response 18 of 46:
|
Aug 29 23:05 UTC 1994 |
My head IS hurting.
|
carson
|
|
response 19 of 46:
|
Aug 30 07:58 UTC 1994 |
(I think I understand. If your head just is, then it exists, but
if it is feeling something, or if it is doing something, then
it doesn't exist!)
<beam with understanding>
|
brighn
|
|
response 20 of 46:
|
Aug 31 07:21 UTC 1994 |
C'mere... I'll show you how to make a head not exist!
A little closer...
<Brighn is hiding a baseball bat>
|
carson
|
|
response 21 of 46:
|
Sep 10 10:35 UTC 1994 |
now that you've gotten your humor out of the way (BTW, I
laughed uproariously), can we get back to the difference
between "is" and "exist"?
|
mscan
|
|
response 22 of 46:
|
Sep 11 18:57 UTC 1994 |
When you are refering to "is", you mean like a copmarision? Similar to the
equal sign in math. With almost everything, there is probabilties, and
assumptions. You draw conclusions, that something IS like such and such,
because of something you've observed. But that of course, is dangerous,
and you must make sure you know of your own probabilities. And then,
dealing with truth and such, you have assumptions. You can draw a
conclusion, and it could be perfectly true, *provided* some other things
are true. For example. 2+2=4. That is perfectly true, assuming the rules
of mathematics are the same for everyone. The same goes for english
language. Words have definite definitions (I've heard people argue
otherwise!), and they have to be definite or else we wouldn't be able to
communicate. :)
|
brighn
|
|
response 23 of 46:
|
Sep 14 05:40 UTC 1994 |
There are four "is"s in English:
(1) I am. = I exist.
(2) I am a student. = "I" is an element of the set "student"
(3) I am the best student in the world. = "I" is synonymous with (eual
to, as in #22) "the best student in the world"
(4) I am typing. = a semantically virtually null element present for
grammatical reasons
|
dang
|
|
response 24 of 46:
|
Sep 14 16:11 UTC 1994 |
Mathmatics IS the language of truth, justice, and the american way. We
even define our words with it. :)
|