There is something that is 100% logical that I want to tell you. There is one and only one literal meaning of death (for the act of dying definition). I do not have to prove it to you. I do not have define the conceptual spaces in which this is true, because it is true in all of them. I do not have to define death for you, because there is a history of the word. Yes, there are many ways to die, but I am talking about the one meaning. Of course, there are more figurative meanings of death. Yes, there are other definitions of death, because of the way the word has expanded over the years to mean other things... Taking this a little bit further, there is one and only one literal meaning of the word "hierarchy." Sure there are many types of hierarchies, from power hierarchies to efficiency hierarchies to even fantasy hierarchies. But all hierarchies fall under the one meaning of hierarchy. It is logical and falls partly under common sense, but it is rather hard (or impossible) to prove through reason. On the flip side, a word like "high" can have multiple meanings for one definition and isn't as precise. A word like "streak" can have multiple meanings for the one definition of "long, narrow band of color" and it can be quite vague. I do not have to prove it to you. It is logical. There is one form of logic (not math logic) that can be only guided, not proven. Basically my way of saying there is too much reasoning in this society, and logic is looked down on. If anyone tells you to show them something logical, and not derived from reason, show them this. Thoughts?
Not sure. You're saying the word "death" has a concrete definition while "high" is relative and open to interpretation? I wouldn't need you to prove it to me though a logical rubric because i knew what the words meant anyway, so not much ambiguity to clear up there.
Yes, that's what I mean. But how do you know one definition is concrete and the other isn't? You know what the words mean, but you don't know if that MEANING is concrete. You used logic to arrive at that conclusion. See what I'm saying? If you proved it, you would be using reasoning, math logic, or some form of logic different from the logic used above.
I do. Do I need to? Would it change the meaning of the words in a way I would recognize? Don't need to get busy proving things I already know. Got bigger fish to fry, bruh.
You don't need to, but it's a good idea to recognize when you're using reason and when you're using logic. A big fish to fry is recognizing who you are.
Don't ask me, the dictionary says so. But another definition of death is how someone dies. But, in the first definition of death in the dictionary (the act of dying) the definition is so concrete that only one meaning can come out of it. You can never split that definition of death. That's what I mean by the post in the OP. But how do you know you can never split that definition? It took something that you can't prove. Was it logic?
It does not fully make sense to me. Consider the following situations, how is death below the same as death in your logic? 1. John Smith was pronounced legally dead by paramedicis, his heart stopped beating for 3 minutes, but then it started beating again. 2. Jane Smith was in a coma for 15 years, for all intents and purposes she was dead, but she did awake 15 years later.
1 is supposedly a literal meaning of death. (although the adverb "legally" can alter the meaning of the PHRASE) 2 is a figurative meaning of death. She was not actually dead, so it is a figurative meaning, like a vegetative state. I can say I was dying of thirst. That, too is a figurative meaning.
Hi @Kane Jiang - I am afraid I see nothing vaguely logical in your piece. There are many meanings of death - you are choosing one for the purpose of extrapolation but that doesn't obviate the others In any logical proof you cannot assume self-evident truths Again, you cannot assume self-evident truths whether historically biased or not Again you are choosing a single meaning to extrapolate to a greater "truth" which simply doesn't follow Some words have multiple meanings, others but one. So what? As above, so what? I thought you were attempting a logical proof? Stating that something is logical is not enough when pursuing logical reasoning. It needs to be demonstrated Again you are choosing a single meaning but trying to expand it to a univeral truth which is ignoring all the other possible lines of reason. There are, as you say, multiple forms of logic, even within the single subset of mathematics Which is about as far from logically determined as is possible I do not see how, in any way, this statement can be deduced from your reasoning. It is entirely unconnected. You will need a significantly tighter argument to get even halfway logical, but I enjoyed reading it and the thoughts it provoked, so I thank you!
Well the whole premise of the first post revolves around this. I am not talking about the other definitions of death. (I know meaning can mean definition, but here I tried to make the words mean different things) I mean the first definition of death can't be split into two different definitions. That's all I mean. You don't need to prove it, because everyone knows it. I'm not trying to arrive at a logical proof, (maybe my usage of the word "logic" was wrong), but you know that the first definition of death can't be split into two different definitions while other words are more vague and can. You know this, how? Was it logic? Was it something else? I am not trying to prove to you something is logical. I am trying to prove to you that you can know something without proof. I only use the word "logic" because I don't have a better word to use. I did say "for the act of dying" definition of death.
I have arrived at the logical conclusion that this thread isn't going anywhere useful. Kane: I am not sure why you feel a need to prove that you can know something without proof, but if it is important to you please do it somewhere else.
