My opinion on importance is that happiness is right therefore a perspective can be better then another perspective if it brings more happiness
Ps, Earlier this thread was me saying nothing can be defined but i changed my mind
My opinion on perspective,
-
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 1:47 pm
My opinion on perspective,
Last edited by xtracorrupt on Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:15 pm, edited 3 times in total.
theres is no need for needing
Re: Why nobody is wrong or right
Please define 'nothing'.
Re: Why nobody is wrong or right
Only silence is "right"
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
-
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 1:47 pm
Re: Why nobody is wrong or right
How do you know this?DAWN wrote:Only silence is "right"
theres is no need for needing
-
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 1:47 pm
Re: Why nobody is wrong or right
i can't, but in this perspective its more like asking, what can be defined?Reductor wrote:Please define 'nothing'.
theres is no need for needing
Re: Why nobody is wrong or right
No. Everything can be defined. But not every definition will be accepted by everyone. Why? Because every definition is but a suggestion which makes it easier to communicate by means of words. If at least two persons agree to a definition then it is their convention.xtracorrupt wrote:because nothing can be defined.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Why nobody is wrong or right
Yes, that sounds right to me.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
-
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 1:47 pm
Re: Why nobody is wrong or right
But how can somebody define what is definable? How can someone have an absolute understandment of the definable?ground wrote:No. Everything can be defined. But not every definition will be accepted by everyone. Why? Because every definition is but a suggestion which makes it easier to communicate by means of words. If at least two persons agree to a definition then it is their convention.xtracorrupt wrote:because nothing can be defined.
What makes your opinion of what can defined the correct definition?
theres is no need for needing
Re: Why nobody is wrong or right
The nature of convention is exactly that it is relative. No need for seeking "absolute".xtracorrupt wrote:But how can somebody define what is definable? How can someone have an absolute understandment of the definable?ground wrote:No. Everything can be defined. But not every definition will be accepted by everyone. Why? Because every definition is but a suggestion which makes it easier to communicate by means of words. If at least two persons agree to a definition then it is their convention.xtracorrupt wrote:because nothing can be defined.
There is no definition. A view has been expressed by means of words.xtracorrupt wrote: What makes your opinion of what can defined the correct definition?
-
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 1:47 pm
Re: Why nobody is wrong or right
Quote:(ground)The nature of convention is exactly that it is relative. No need for seeking "absolute".(maximum amount of quotes)xtracorrupt wrote:But how can somebody define what is definable? How can someone have an absolute understandment of the definable?ground wrote:No. Everything can be defined. But not every definition will be accepted by everyone. Why? Because every definition is but a suggestion which makes it easier to communicate by means of words. If at least two persons agree to a definition then it is their convention.xtracorrupt wrote:because nothing can be defined.
There is no definition. A view has been expressed by means of words.[/quote]xtracorrupt wrote: What makes your opinion of what can defined the correct definition?
Exactly we don't need to obtain anything from anything, therefore we can keep an open mind and take everything into consideration.
theres is no need for needing
Re: Why nobody is wrong or right
I don't know what you need to obtain or you don't need to obtain, so "we" does not apply from my perspective.xtracorrupt wrote:Exactly we don't need to obtain anything from anything, therefore we can keep an open mind and take everything into consideration.
Keeping an open mind does not negate the need for definitions in certain contexts.
(Actually worldly life could not be organized without definitions and may be led into chaos entailing much additional unhappiness.)
Last edited by ground on Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Why nobody is wrong or right
You can be right or wrong relative to a system of axioms or aims. So if you aim is not to get run over by a car, it is best to cross the road with care. Crossing the road carelessly would be the wrong thing to do relative to this aim.
If you aim is to come up with mathematically correct results, then you would would to use Peano axioms and rules of predicate calculus to make deductions. So Pythagoras asserting that the square of the long side of a right-angled triangle is the sum of squares of the other sides is mathematically correct, given the axioms (+Euclid's fifth axiom = flat space), it is also what we observe if we try to measure a triangular sandpit in our backyard. It is not correct if our triangle spans miles, both due to the unevenness of the terrain and more fundamentally the curves nature of the Earth.
So "right" or "wrong" are always with respect to some initial assumptions or "rules". Without them, there is no possibility of a discourse anyway.
If you aim is to come up with mathematically correct results, then you would would to use Peano axioms and rules of predicate calculus to make deductions. So Pythagoras asserting that the square of the long side of a right-angled triangle is the sum of squares of the other sides is mathematically correct, given the axioms (+Euclid's fifth axiom = flat space), it is also what we observe if we try to measure a triangular sandpit in our backyard. It is not correct if our triangle spans miles, both due to the unevenness of the terrain and more fundamentally the curves nature of the Earth.
So "right" or "wrong" are always with respect to some initial assumptions or "rules". Without them, there is no possibility of a discourse anyway.
_/|\_
Re: Why nobody is wrong or right
So if it is right for a tiger to eat a deer, is it right for it to eat a small child?
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Why nobody is wrong or right
Right from which frame of reference?pegembara wrote:So if it is right for a tiger to eat a deer, is it right for it to eat a small child?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Why nobody is wrong or right
Some food for thought (inspired by D. Perdue's "Debate inTibetan buddhism", Chapter 3, i.e. partially quoted and arbitrarily amended):
Approaching "definition"
A definition may be considered to be the actual object (phenomenon) defined and necessarily refers to the definiendum which may be considered to be the name designated to that object (or designated to the phenomenon which is transformed into an object of thought by this designation). Of course since a conventional "name" in most cases evokes an idea and since the combination of "name" and idea is often referrred to as "concept" actually the definition is a verbal expression intended to standardize the idea aspect of a concept by means of a verbal delineation of what it is suggested to mean inter-individually thus trying to exclude everything else and thus suggesting a convention.
A particul definition, or characterizer, and its definiendum, or that characterized, are mutually inclusive. Mutual inclusion has two components. First the things mutually inclusive must be phenomena which are different that is they must be not exactly the same in both name and meaning. Obviously, any two mutually inclusive phenomena must be different in name, but their meaning, all the phenomena which they include or all those things to which their names can properly refer, must be just the same. The second requirement of mutually inclusive phenomena is that they be mutually pervasive; whatever is the one is necessarily the other. Both of these requirements of mutually inclusive phenomena obtain for any particular definition and its definiendum.The definition is considered to be the actual object defined and the definiendum is considered to be the name designated to that object.
Approaching "definition"
A definition may be considered to be the actual object (phenomenon) defined and necessarily refers to the definiendum which may be considered to be the name designated to that object (or designated to the phenomenon which is transformed into an object of thought by this designation). Of course since a conventional "name" in most cases evokes an idea and since the combination of "name" and idea is often referrred to as "concept" actually the definition is a verbal expression intended to standardize the idea aspect of a concept by means of a verbal delineation of what it is suggested to mean inter-individually thus trying to exclude everything else and thus suggesting a convention.
A particul definition, or characterizer, and its definiendum, or that characterized, are mutually inclusive. Mutual inclusion has two components. First the things mutually inclusive must be phenomena which are different that is they must be not exactly the same in both name and meaning. Obviously, any two mutually inclusive phenomena must be different in name, but their meaning, all the phenomena which they include or all those things to which their names can properly refer, must be just the same. The second requirement of mutually inclusive phenomena is that they be mutually pervasive; whatever is the one is necessarily the other. Both of these requirements of mutually inclusive phenomena obtain for any particular definition and its definiendum.The definition is considered to be the actual object defined and the definiendum is considered to be the name designated to that object.