My opinion on perspective,

[xtracorrupt]

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

[Reductor]

Please define 'nothing'.

[DAWN]

Only silence is "right"

[xtracorrupt]

Only silence is "right"

How do you know this?

[xtracorrupt]

Please define 'nothing'.

i can't, but in this perspective its more like asking, what can be defined?

[ground]

because nothing can be defined.

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.

[retrofuturist]

Yes, that sounds right to me.

Metta,
Retro.

[xtracorrupt]

because nothing can be defined.

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.

But how can somebody define what is definable? How can someone have an absolute understandment of the definable?

What makes your opinion of what can defined the correct definition?

[ground]

because nothing can be defined.

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.

But how can somebody define what is definable? How can someone have an absolute understandment of the definable?

The nature of convention is exactly that it is relative. No need for seeking "absolute".

What makes your opinion of what can defined the correct definition?

There is no definition. A view has been expressed by means of words.

[xtracorrupt]

because nothing can be defined.

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.

But how can somebody define what is definable? How can someone have an absolute understandment of the definable?

Quote:(ground)The nature of convention is exactly that it is relative. No need for seeking "absolute".(maximum amount of quotes)

What makes your opinion of what can defined the correct definition?

There is no definition. A view has been expressed by means of words.[/quote]

Exactly we don't need to obtain anything from anything, therefore we can keep an open mind and take everything into consideration.

[ground]

Exactly we don't need to obtain anything from anything, therefore we can keep an open mind and take everything into consideration.

I don't know what you need to obtain or you don't need to obtain, so "we" does not apply from my perspective.
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.)

[Dan74]

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.

[pegembara]

So if it is right for a tiger to eat a deer, is it right for it to eat a small child?

[tiltbillings]

So if it is right for a tiger to eat a deer, is it right for it to eat a small child?

Right from which frame of reference?

[ground]

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.

[Yana]

So if it is right for a tiger to eat a deer, is it right for it to eat a small child?

Why is a child more important than a deer to us? Because we are naturally attached to it.so we tend to do everything in our power to make sure they are safe.And it is natural for us to be upset and angry when a child is attacked.This is in our nature.Just like to kill and eat is in the tiger's nature.

Even though a child has been attacked and eaten and even though we are in pain and suffering with grief if we look deeply the answer to your question it would be yes,absolutely.Because your question asked "is it right for a tiger" so this is from a tiger's point of view.is it right for a human to have their children eaten by a tiger? the answer would most probably be no". Because our intention is to keep them safe.

Keeping your loved one safe and eating are both wholesome intentions.

However painful it seems from a subjective point of view.

We must remember that Right or Wrong is relative to it's Intentions.

[xtracorrupt]

So if it is right for a tiger to eat a deer, is it right for it to eat a small child?

This is wrong because is causes suffering/ prevents happiness, unless the deer/human is in a state of which the suffering and future suffering is of greater value then the of its happiness and future happiness, therefore ending its life would not be of ill will, however we must be able of judging so in order to make this decision, but I think we are incapable of doing so.

[DAWN]

Only silence is "right"

How do you know this?

I dont know the silence, it's the silence that know me

[pegembara]

So if it is right for a tiger to eat a deer, is it right for it to eat a small child?

Right from which frame of reference?

Exactly.