So please someone answer me, is there any truth to that comment or no?Aljosa23In practice no. Humans are too irrational and flawed for it to work. Seems like a mixed capitalistic system works best with providing the benefits of capitalism while filling in the holes where a free-market doesn't actually work as intended.
What is the one thing that shapes your whole political philosophy?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Why are so many people talking about this guy?
[spoiler] trollface.jpg [/spoiler]
A tool designed to function as a barrel will be very poorly equipped to function as a chair or boat. In fact it would barely function at all as a boat, and would be highly impractical as a chair. When something would function so poorly as a device that there is no reason to use it as that device, then there is no reason to recognize it as that device. An object's ability to perform a specific function is not subjective. The ability for an object to function as a barrel, chair, or boat is an objective fact. The nature/quality of an object's existence is an objective fact. The word ascribed to it is an arbitrary tool of classification used for ease of communication/documentation (same as units of measurement). Function is not meaningless. Function is what gives meaning to the measurements, proportions, and all of the other factors that constitute an object. The equations that constitute a chair are made in reaction to the functional requirements of the chair, and the equations do not have any practical meaning until the function of the chair is recognized.[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
Â
but you could cross it in a barrel.
Â
you can also sit above the ground on a barrel.
Â
so is it a boat, barrel or chair.
Â
Â
the answer is subjective. a man will call it what he likes depending on the situation.
Â
Â
function is meaningless.
frannkzappa
"barely", "impractical", "highly" you are making the matter more subjective and adding less meaning.
Â
Â
What you are saying makes no sense at all. The nature of an object's ability to function is an objective fact. A barrel can serve as a flotation device, and it could perhaps with some difficulty be used to cross a small lake, or flow down a river (similar to in The Hobbit), but a barrel by itself cannot have any efficient means of propulsion and it is extremely limited in the space available. If your purpose is to travel across a body of water with speed and comfort, a barrel will not serve. A barrel can only be used to cross small bodies of water, and even that would be difficult. That means a barrel could be used as a boat theoretically, but only with great difficulty. A barrel functions poorly as a boat because it is not designed to function as a boat. It is designed to function as a cylindrical storage device, and the fact that it can be used as a boat in even a limited capacity is entirely incidental. That fact is why barrels are not used as boats, and why barrels are not identified as boats.An object's ability to function as a boat is not an opinion, and it is not a subjective judgement - it is a fact. It is a fact that this:
Â
is less effective as a tool for traveling across large bodies of water as this:
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
[QUOTE="Laihendi"] A tool designed to function as a barrel will be very poorly equipped to function as a chair or boat. In fact it would barely function at all as a boat, and would be highly impractical as a chair. When something would function so poorly as a device that there is no reason to use it as that device, then there is no reason to recognize it as that device. An object's ability to perform a specific function is not subjective. The ability for an object to function as a barrel, chair, or boat is an objective fact. The nature/quality of an object's existence is an objective fact. The word ascribed to it is an arbitrary tool of classification used for ease of communication/documentation (same as units of measurement). Function is not meaningless. Function is what gives meaning to the measurements, proportions, and all of the other factors that constitute an object. The equations that constitute a chair are made in reaction to the functional requirements of the chair, and the equations do not have any practical meaning until the function of the chair is recognized.Laihendi
"barely", "impractical", "highly" you are making the matter more subjective and adding less meaning.
What you are saying makes no sense at all. The nature of an object's ability to function is an objective fact. A barrel can serve as a flotation device, and it could perhaps with some difficulty be used to cross a small lake, or flow down a river (similar to in The Hobbit), but a barrel by itself cannot have any efficient means of propulsion and it is extremely limited in the space available. If your purpose is to travel across a body of water with speed and comfort, a barrel will not serve. A barrel can only be used to cross small bodies of water, and even that would be difficult. That means a barrel could be used as a boat theoretically, but only with great difficulty. A barrel functions poorly as a boat because it is not designed to function as a boat. It is designed to function as a cylindrical storage device, and the fact that it can be used as a boat in even a limited capacity is entirely incidental. That fact is why barrels are not used as boats, and why barrels are not identified as boats.An object's ability to function as a boat is not an opinion, and it is not a subjective judgement - it is a fact. It is a fact that this:
is less effective as a tool for traveling across large bodies of water as this:
again what you are saying only applies to abstract concepts (not forms) created by humans. a chair is just a clump of matter, it has no intrinsic "function".
What you are saying makes no sense at all. The nature of an object's ability to function is an objective fact. A barrel can serve as a flotation device, and it could perhaps with some difficulty be used to cross a small lake, or flow down a river (similar to in The Hobbit), but a barrel by itself cannot have any efficient means of propulsion and it is extremely limited in the space available. If your purpose is to travel across a body of water with speed and comfort, a barrel will not serve. A barrel can only be used to cross small bodies of water, and even that would be difficult. That means a barrel could be used as a boat theoretically, but only with great difficulty. A barrel functions poorly as a boat because it is not designed to function as a boat. It is designed to function as a cylindrical storage device, and the fact that it can be used as a boat in even a limited capacity is entirely incidental. That fact is why barrels are not used as boats, and why barrels are not identified as boats.[QUOTE="Laihendi"]
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
"barely", "impractical", "highly" you are making the matter more subjective and adding less meaning.
frannkzappa
An object's ability to function as a boat is not an opinion, and it is not a subjective judgement - it is a fact. It is a fact that this:
is less effective as a tool for traveling across large bodies of water as this:
again what you are saying only applies to abstract concepts (not forms) created by humans. a chair is just a clump of matter, it has no intrinsic "function".
It is the design/form of that clump of matter that gives it an intrinsic function. A chair is not just a clump of matter. It is a clump of matter shaped by materials, measurements, and proportions deliberately chosen so that it may effectively function as a chair. The clump of matter is then recognized as a chair because it demonstrably possesses the functional requirements of a chair. Until an object's function is recognized, the clump of matter has no meaning. It is just an incoherent jumble of colours, shapes, and textures. It is the act of recognizing an object's function that makes the jumble meaningful to a conscious individual.
Log in to comment