What is the one thing that shapes your whole political philosophy?

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

no it is not, knowledge is itself the goal.

seeking stimulation from the brain in the form of joy or happiness for the sake of itself is animalistic and is the basest aspect of humanity, something to be overcome, not to strive for.

Ace6301

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Not sure if you're including me in this but insomnia (even if it is minor) is a bitch so I'll respond anyway. I just don't think a pursuit of true knowledge as a means of satisfying "animalistic desires" is possible. I would however point out that we're hardly the only animal that seeks knowledge against our better judgement as individuals, we just do it on a larger scale and generally like to put ourselves above other species. So in a way I'd say a pursuit of knowledge is an animalistic desire in an odd way that we neither derive happiness from solely nor do it because of entirely conscious reasons. But I'm really the sort who doesn't care too much about the why solely for asking why, the only answer that ever satisfied me is that there isn't one. Things just are and regardless to the conclusion various people come to all they do is bicker without changing what is.Ace6301

no, we suppress animalistic desires to gain knowledge.

yes it does, the only way we can understand and interact with the physical world is through knowledge..

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="BranKetra"] No I stated your post contains narcissitic qualities. That is all. In response to the rest of your post, there are cultures which teach ambition is detrimental to the human experience, so there are people opposing your view on ambition and their reasons are not apathetic or nihilistic. They actually constrast that state and philosophy by promoting altruism and self-actualization. Ambition and reason are seperate ideas. frannkzappa

the truley ignorant can not think, for they can not understand the world around them.

but nobody is ever 100% ignorant, their very genetics grants them an initial knowledge of certain things as well as instincts.

of course concepts exist without man, only forms truly exist perfectly.

happiness as it applies to a person is infinitely unique and imperfect.

it is impossible to compare happiness between people on a perfectly accurate basis. the only way a person can become aware of and act upon their copy of the theory of happiness is through knowledge.

A=A means nothing to a real person.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] I am aware, and those people are hypocrites. Their ambition is to annihilate ambition, which is obviously a contradiction, and that is why their actions are so senseless and destructive. Such creatures aspire to create a void where the necessities of life are impossible. They desire to create only to the extent that they are able to destroy or prevent the creations of others, and so their lives can only have meaning to the extent that they are able to deprive others of it. @ Frank Zappa - It is nonsensical to say that the ignorant cannot think. Everyone is initially ignorant, so if what you are saying is true then it would be impossible for anyone to ever think. You are reversing cause and effect - you say one becomes rational through knowledge, when in reality one cannot create/acquire knowledge unless he already is rational. Reality exists without knowledge of it. An infant has no knowledge of algebra or airplanes, but those things still exist. Learning is not an act of creation; it is an act of recognition. Happiness is an emotional reaction that exists regardless of whether one understands its meaning. Happiness does not need to be defined for it to exist, it just needs to be defined for it to be understood.Laihendi

the truley ignorant can not think, for they can not understand the world around them.

but nobody is ever 100% ignorant, their very genetics grants them an initial knowledge of certain things as well as instincts.

of course concepts exist without man, only forms truly exist perfectly.

happiness as it applies to a person is infinitely unique and imperfect.

it is impossible to compare happiness between people on a perfectly accurate basis. the only way a person can become aware of and act upon their copy of the theory of happiness is through knowledge.

A=A means nothing to a real person.

i did not say instinct was knowledge.

lets say a man wants to build a chair. he envisions a thing with certain dimensions,curves and ratios. THAT is the chair.

but he can never build the chair he imagined and designed.

because exact measurements, straight lines , measurable curves, pi .etc does not exist in the physical world. so if he builds something he will come up with (hopefully) something almost a chair.

by nature this "almost chair" is unique and no accurate judgments on other "almost chairs" can be made.

thus a statement like A=A only has meaning in a perfect world. everything has a margin of error and everything is imperfect, so working with absolutes will not get you anywhere in the real world.

any engineer will tell you that if you try to build a rocket with A=A, you won't get very far.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Also, looking at the two other tiers, I think that it is more of a continuum than a hard line (responsiveness is not a 'yes' or 'no' thing), and both, ideally, should be p. directly subservient to reason to the extent possible.

frannkzappa

this is exactly my point.

Yeah, I was just taking a minor issue w/ part of the pyramid.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

While Lai is being rather stupid ITT as per usual, I don't think that the pursuit of knowledge as a means of satisfying 'animalistic' desires is really something to be criticized. IMO, it is a pretty productive outlet in that regard.

Ace6301

Wasn't directed at you. That said, I was more or less treating impulsive curiosity and/or boredom/desire for entertainment as an 'animalistic' desire. I definitely derive pleasure from reading about sh!t that I don't know about for those reasons.

And beans, unless you can actually refute anything that I am saying then you have no right to call me stupid.Laihendi

I can, but that would be futile because you aren't capable of rational discussions because you are stupid.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Are you implying that there is something wrong with a person wanting himself to be happy? A person cannot find meaning in his life if he disconnects his ego with his existence. You are essentially advocating apathy and nihilism at the expense of ambition. Ambition is the source of all human achievement and, ultimately, any action by an individual conscious of what he is doing. To deny ambition is to reduce your life to that of an animal - to act according to instinct and commands, rather than reason. If that is what you want, then you are by definition anti-life (that is, life qua man).Laihendi

 You do not understand, so I will explain.

Annihilation of ambition is not a goal of any learned individual because he realizes it is a part of humanity and so it is impossible to rid oneself it with anything less than achieving enlightenment. An individual capable of using his or her will to overcome ego will become greater than anything possible by caring about oneself alone. The path to enlightenment requires on let go of ambition for true knowledge. For others who cannot reach that state of purity, human ambition will eventually get achieved, suppressed, or become self-destructive. It is possible for ambition tochange into something else entirely.

You are referring to a parasite which refuses to accept the truth that others may be great enough to achieve things they cannot and will work to make that a reality; they would be the embodiment of envy and greed. 

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

the truley ignorant can not think, for they can not understand the world around them.

 

but nobody is ever 100% ignorant, their very genetics grants them an initial knowledge of certain things as well as instincts.

 

of course concepts exist without man, only forms truly exist perfectly.

 

happiness as it applies to a person is infinitely unique and imperfect.

 

it is impossible to compare happiness between people on a perfectly accurate basis. the only way a person can become aware of and act upon their copy of the theory of happiness is through knowledge.

 

 

A=A means nothing to a real person.

frannkzappa

i did not say instinct was knowledge.

lets say a man wants to build a chair. he envisions a thing with certain dimensions,curves and ratios. THAT is the chair.

but he can never build the chair he imagined and designed.

because exact measurements, straight lines , measurable curves, pi .etc does not exist in the physical world. so if he builds something he will come up with (hopefully) something almost a chair.

by nature this "almost chair" is unique and no accurate judgments on other "almost chairs" can be made.

thus a statement like A=A only has meaning in a perfect world. everything has a margin of error and everything is imperfect, so working with absolutes will not get you anywhere in the real world.

any engineer will tell you that if you try to build a rocket with A=A, you won't get very far.

A thing is defined by its function. If something can function as a chair, then it is a chair. The measurements of a chair's dimensions only need to be sufficient for it to function as a chair. They do not need to be reducible to precise units of measurement. Units of measurement are arbitrary distinctions of distance that are agreed on for the sake of easy communication/documentation. There is no reason to say that a 3.0000001 foot high chair is not a chair because the maker wanted it to be 3 feet, or that a 3.9999999999 foot high chair is not a chair because the maker wanted it to be 4 feet. The fact that different chair-makers have different standards of measurements/proportions for the variety of chairs they make demonstrates that a chair as an abstract concept does not have to have specific measurements/proportions. If the conception does not require specific measurements/proportions, then there is no reason for the physical realization to require it either.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

the truley ignorant can not think, for they can not understand the world around them.

 

but nobody is ever 100% ignorant, their very genetics grants them an initial knowledge of certain things as well as instincts.

 

of course concepts exist without man, only forms truly exist perfectly.

 

happiness as it applies to a person is infinitely unique and imperfect.

 

it is impossible to compare happiness between people on a perfectly accurate basis. the only way a person can become aware of and act upon their copy of the theory of happiness is through knowledge.

 

 

A=A means nothing to a real person.

frannkzappa

i did not say instinct was knowledge.

lets say a man wants to build a chair. he envisions a thing with certain dimensions,curves and ratios. THAT is the chair.

but he can never build the chair he imagined and designed.

because exact measurements, straight lines , measurable curves, pi .etc does not exist in the physical world. so if he builds something he will come up with (hopefully) something almost a chair.

by nature this "almost chair" is unique and no accurate judgments on other "almost chairs" can be made.

thus a statement like A=A only has meaning in a perfect world. everything has a margin of error and everything is imperfect, so working with absolutes will not get you anywhere in the real world.

any engineer will tell you that if you try to build a rocket with A=A, you won't get very far.

almost called you a defeatist

but that might have prompted a serious response

his conception of the chair had it being 3 feet high when what he built is actually 3.00000001 feet high

Laihendi

That is a lot of sig figs for a chair.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] You are saying that the process of thinking requires knowledge. Please explain how one acquires knowledge. Also, instinct is not knowledge. Instinct is acting without deliberate/conscious thought. The rest of the post does cannot mean anything to me without further elaboration. For example, how is happiness as it applies to a person imperfect? What is wrong with it? What theory of happiness are you referring to? How does the recognition of a thing being what it is mean nothing? The only alternative to a thing being what it is, is a thing being what it is not. That is obviously a contradiction. 1=1, chair=chair, A=A.Laihendi

i did not say instinct was knowledge.

lets say a man wants to build a chair. he envisions a thing with certain dimensions,curves and ratios. THAT is the chair.

but he can never build the chair he imagined and designed.

because exact measurements, straight lines , measurable curves, pi .etc does not exist in the physical world. so if he builds something he will come up with (hopefully) something almost a chair.

by nature this "almost chair" is unique and no accurate judgments on other "almost chairs" can be made.

thus a statement like A=A only has meaning in a perfect world. everything has a margin of error and everything is imperfect, so working with absolutes will not get you anywhere in the real world.

any engineer will tell you that if you try to build a rocket with A=A, you won't get very far.

A thing is defined by its function. If something can function as a chair, then it is a chair. The measurements of a chair's dimensions only need to be sufficient for it to function as a chair. They do not need to be reducible to precise units of measurement. Units of measurement are arbitrary distinctions of distance that are agreed on for the sake of easy communication/documentation. There is no reason to say that a 3.0000001 foot high chair is not a chair because the maker wanted it to be 3 feet, or that a 3.9999999999 foot high chair is not a chair because the maker wanted it to be 4 feet. The fact that different chair-makers have different standards of measurements/proportions for the variety of chairs they make demonstrates that a chair as an abstract concept does not have to have specific measurements/proportions. If the conception does not require specific measurements/proportions, then there is no reason for the physical realization to require it either.

you are insanely human centric, function has no meaning in the greater scheme of things.

a box .00001 meters off, might as well be 6 thousoand kilometers off in the view of the universe.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] And beans, unless you can actually refute anything that I am saying then you have no right to call me stupid.coolbeans90

I can, but that would be futile because you aren't capable of rational discussions because you are stupid.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] And beans, unless you can actually refute anything that I am saying then you have no right to call me stupid.makingham

I can, but that would be futile because you aren't capable of rational discussions because you are stupid.

no u

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] You are saying that the process of thinking requires knowledge. Please explain how one acquires knowledge. Also, instinct is not knowledge. Instinct is acting without deliberate/conscious thought. The rest of the post does cannot mean anything to me without further elaboration. For example, how is happiness as it applies to a person imperfect? What is wrong with it? What theory of happiness are you referring to? How does the recognition of a thing being what it is mean nothing? The only alternative to a thing being what it is, is a thing being what it is not. That is obviously a contradiction. 1=1, chair=chair, A=A.coolbeans90

i did not say instinct was knowledge.

lets say a man wants to build a chair. he envisions a thing with certain dimensions,curves and ratios. THAT is the chair.

but he can never build the chair he imagined and designed.

because exact measurements, straight lines , measurable curves, pi .etc does not exist in the physical world. so if he builds something he will come up with (hopefully) something almost a chair.

by nature this "almost chair" is unique and no accurate judgments on other "almost chairs" can be made.

thus a statement like A=A only has meaning in a perfect world. everything has a margin of error and everything is imperfect, so working with absolutes will not get you anywhere in the real world.

any engineer will tell you that if you try to build a rocket with A=A, you won't get very far.

almost called you a defeatist

but that might have prompted a serious response

are you telling me it's better to work with absolutes than with a margin of error?

please don't design planes.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

 

i did not say instinct was knowledge.

 

lets say a man wants to build a chair. he envisions a thing with certain dimensions,curves and ratios. THAT is the chair.

 

but he can never build the chair he imagined and designed.

because exact measurements, straight lines , measurable curves, pi .etc does not exist in the physical world. so if he builds something he will come up with (hopefully) something almost a chair.

by nature this "almost chair" is unique and no accurate judgments on other "almost chairs" can be made.

 

thus a statement like A=A only has meaning in a perfect world. everything has a margin of error and everything is imperfect, so working with absolutes will not get you anywhere in the real world.

 

 

 

any engineer will tell you that if you try to build a rocket with A=A, you won't get very far.

frannkzappa

almost called you a defeatist

but that might have prompted a serious response

are you telling me it's better to work with absolutes than with a margin of error?

please don't design planes.

i got a srs response anyway

god damn it

it was a fvcking joke

tolerances/margins of error are obviously a thing and i've worked with 'em

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

almost called you a defeatist

but that might have prompted a serious response

coolbeans90

are you telling me it's better to work with absolutes than with a margin of error?

please don't design planes.

i got a srs response anyway

god damn it

it was a fvcking joke

tolerances/margins of error are obviously a thing and i've worked with 'em

it's 6 AM and i'm barely conscious, sorry.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

are you telling me it's better to work with absolutes than with a margin of error?

 

please don't design planes.

frannkzappa

i got a srs response anyway

god damn it

it was a fvcking joke

tolerances/margins of error are obviously a thing and i've worked with 'em

it's 6 AM and i'm barely conscious, sorry.

LOL

im probly going to sleep soon myself

is designing planes fun?

when i actually get to do it, i mostly manage now.

plus we are in between projects....thus why i frequent this website instead of working.;)

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

i did not say instinct was knowledge.

lets say a man wants to build a chair. he envisions a thing with certain dimensions,curves and ratios. THAT is the chair.

but he can never build the chair he imagined and designed.

because exact measurements, straight lines , measurable curves, pi .etc does not exist in the physical world. so if he builds something he will come up with (hopefully) something almost a chair.

by nature this "almost chair" is unique and no accurate judgments on other "almost chairs" can be made.

thus a statement like A=A only has meaning in a perfect world. everything has a margin of error and everything is imperfect, so working with absolutes will not get you anywhere in the real world.

any engineer will tell you that if you try to build a rocket with A=A, you won't get very far.

frannkzappa

A thing is defined by its function. If something can function as a chair, then it is a chair. The measurements of a chair's dimensions only need to be sufficient for it to function as a chair. They do not need to be reducible to precise units of measurement. Units of measurement are arbitrary distinctions of distance that are agreed on for the sake of easy communication/documentation. There is no reason to say that a 3.0000001 foot high chair is not a chair because the maker wanted it to be 3 feet, or that a 3.9999999999 foot high chair is not a chair because the maker wanted it to be 4 feet. The fact that different chair-makers have different standards of measurements/proportions for the variety of chairs they make demonstrates that a chair as an abstract concept does not have to have specific measurements/proportions. If the conception does not require specific measurements/proportions, then there is no reason for the physical realization to require it either.

you are insanely human centric, function has no meaning in the greater scheme of things.

a box .00001 meters off, might as well be 6 thousoand kilometers off in the view of the universe.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Your theory does not account for differing standards with regards to measurements and any other distinctive features. You say a man builds a "chair" that is not actually a chair, because his conception of the chair had it being 3 feet high when what he built is actually 3.00000001 feet high, and is therefore only an approximation of his ideal. Then another man conceives of a chair being 4 feet high, but the actual "approximation" he builds is 3.999999999 feet tall. You say that is not an actual chair, because it does not precisely meet the standards conceived by the chair-maker. Why do the "chairs" need to precisely match the measurements conceived by their makers in order for them to actually be chairs?

A thing is defined by its function. If something can function as a chair, then it is a chair. The measurements of a chair's dimensions only need to be sufficient for it to function as a chair. They do not need to be reducible to precise units of measurement. Units of measurement are arbitrary distinctions of distance that are agreed on for the sake of easy communication/documentation. There is no reason to say that a 3.0000001 foot high chair is not a chair because the maker wanted it to be 3 feet, or that a 3.9999999999 foot high chair is not a chair because the maker wanted it to be 4 feet. The fact that different chair-makers have different standards of measurements/proportions for the variety of chairs they make demonstrates that a chair as an abstract concept does not have to have specific measurements/proportions. If the conception does not require specific measurements/proportions, then there is no reason for the physical realization to require it either.

Laihendi

you are insanely human centric, function has no meaning in the greater scheme of things.

a box .00001 meters off, might as well be 6 thousoand kilometers off in the view of the universe.

you misinterpret what i mean by view.

a line that measures 1 meter is infinitely different then a line 1.1 meters.

this compounds with an equation as complex as a chair.

what you are saying is that 1+1=2.1 is correct enough. it is not.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

you are insanely human centric, function has no meaning in the greater scheme of things.

a box .00001 meters off, might as well be 6 thousoand kilometers off in the view of the universe.

frannkzappa

you misinterpret what i mean by view.

a line that measures 1 meter is infinitely different then a line 1.1 meters.

this compounds with an equation as complex as a chair.

what you are saying is that 1+1=2.1 is correct enough. it is not.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] The "view of the universe" does not mean anything. Only conscious entities are capable of having views. With regard to humans, there is no greater scheme of things than what can be related to humans. @ BranKetra - No one can achieve something without a desire to do so (except as an occasional accident). Any deliberately creative actions requires ambition, whether is be growing food, digging a well, building a shelter, or whatever else. Ambition is necessary for life as a conscious individual. Vague and undefined concepts such as "enlightenment", "true knowledge", or "state of purity" do not change this fact.Laihendi

you misinterpret what i mean by view.

a line that measures 1 meter is infinitely different then a line 1.1 meters.

this compounds with an equation as complex as a chair.

what you are saying is that 1+1=2.1 is correct enough. it is not.

yes it is, everything in the universe is.

function is a meaningles concept invented by man and is HIGHLY subjective.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

you misinterpret what i mean by view.

 

a line that measures 1 meter is infinitely different then a line 1.1 meters.

 

this compounds with an equation as complex as a chair.

 

what you are saying is that 1+1=2.1 is correct enough. it is not.

frannkzappa

yes it is, everything in the universe is.

function is a meaningles concept invented by man and is HIGHLY subjective.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] A chair does not have to have measurements reducible to a specific number of units. A chair is not merely a sum of arbitrary measurements and proportions. A chair is an object that serves a specific function, and this function is made possible by its primary characteristics (seat, legs, back, etc.). The measurements and proportions are only a theoretical tool to guide the construction of the chair. The measurements and proportions are themselves approximations of what the chair will actually be.Laihendi

yes it is, everything in the universe is.

function is a meaningles concept invented by man and is HIGHLY subjective.

What is the function of a chair?

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

yes it is, everything in the universe is.

function is a meaningles concept invented by man and is HIGHLY subjective.

frannkzappa

What is the function of a chair?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Function is not a meaningless concept. A chair and a boat have entirely different functions, and if you cannot recognize that then you cannot recognize the difference between the acts of sitting down and sailing across a body of water. A function is not subjective; a thing either performs a specific function or it does not. A chair does function as a boat, and a boat does not function as a chair.Laihendi

What is the function of a chair?

And if i were to do something else with it?

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

What is the function of a chair?

frannkzappa

And if i were to do something else with it?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] To serve as a portable tool for sitting above the ground.Laihendi

And if i were to do something else with it?

so one mans boat is another mans chair.

you have not only just said A=/=A but also A=B

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

 

And if i were to do something else with it?

frannkzappa

so one mans boat is another mans chair.

you have not only just said A=/=A but also A=B

cannot be used to sail across this:

If a device is made so that it specifically can function as both a chair and a boat, then it is both a chair and a boat. That does not mean that chairs and boats are the same thing. The functional requirements of a chair are entirely different from that of a boat, and a device that can serve as both must possess the functional requirements of both.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Then it would be whatever you use it for. However it would still be recognizable/identifiable as a chair, as it would still possess all of the defining characteristics of a chair and would still be capable of functioning as one.Laihendi

so one mans boat is another mans chair.

you have not only just said A=/=A but also A=B

cannot be used to sail across this:

If a device is made so that it specifically can function as both a chair and a boat, then it is both a chair and a boat. That does not mean that chairs and boats are the same thing. The functional requirements of a chair are entirely different from that of a boat, and a device that can serve as both must possess the functional requirements of both.

but you could cross it in a barrel.

you can also sit above the ground on a barrel.

so is it a boat, barrel or chair.

the answer is subjective. a man will call it what he likes depending on the situation.

function is meaningless.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

 

so one mans boat is another mans chair.

 

you have not only just said A=/=A but also A=B

frannkzappa

cannot be used to sail across this:

If a device is made so that it specifically can function as both a chair and a boat, then it is both a chair and a boat. That does not mean that chairs and boats are the same thing. The functional requirements of a chair are entirely different from that of a boat, and a device that can serve as both must possess the functional requirements of both.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] That is false. A chair can only function as a boat if the nature of its design allows for that. This:

cannot be used to sail across this:

If a device is made so that it specifically can function as both a chair and a boat, then it is both a chair and a boat. That does not mean that chairs and boats are the same thing. The functional requirements of a chair are entirely different from that of a boat, and a device that can serve as both must possess the functional requirements of both.

Laihendi

game spot randomly deletes posts in quotes sometimes

i edited the original.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

so one mans boat is another mans chair.

you have not only just said A=/=A but also A=B

frannkzappa

cannot be used to sail across this:

If a device is made so that it specifically can function as both a chair and a boat, then it is both a chair and a boat. That does not mean that chairs and boats are the same thing. The functional requirements of a chair are entirely different from that of a boat, and a device that can serve as both must possess the functional requirements of both.

but you could cross it in a barrel.

you can also sit above the ground on a barrel.

so is it a boat, barrel or chair.

the answer is subjective. a man will call it what he likes depending on the situation.

function is meaningless.

I don't trust people in politics who base their worldview on religion.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Your theory does not account for differing standards with regards to measurements and any other distinctive features. You say a man builds a "chair" that is not actually a chair, because his conception of the chair had it being 3 feet high when what he built is actually 3.00000001 feet high, and is therefore only an approximation of his ideal. Then another man conceives of a chair being 4 feet high, but the actual "approximation" he builds is 3.999999999 feet tall. You say that is not an actual chair, because it does not precisely meet the standards conceived by the chair-maker. Why do the "chairs" need to precisely match the measurements conceived by their makers in order for them to actually be chairs?

A thing is defined by its function. If something can function as a chair, then it is a chair. The measurements of a chair's dimensions only need to be sufficient for it to function as a chair. They do not need to be reducible to precise units of measurement. Units of measurement are arbitrary distinctions of distance that are agreed on for the sake of easy communication/documentation. There is no reason to say that a 3.0000001 foot high chair is not a chair because the maker wanted it to be 3 feet, or that a 3.9999999999 foot high chair is not a chair because the maker wanted it to be 4 feet. The fact that different chair-makers have different standards of measurements/proportions for the variety of chairs they make demonstrates that a chair as an abstract concept does not have to have specific measurements/proportions. If the conception does not require specific measurements/proportions, then there is no reason for the physical realization to require it either.

Laihendi

you are insanely human centric, function has no meaning in the greater scheme of things.

a box .00001 meters off, might as well be 6 thousoand kilometers off in the view of the universe.

self determination

Was going to read this whole thread but then I came to the realization I'm not that much of a nerd but this on the first page caught my eye: 

I also think the private sector does things much better than the federal government does.

BMD004

Thank goodness Canada doens't have any obsession with "the private sector" and "job creators". It must suck to have incompetent governments who aren't truly able to protect their citizens.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] That is false. A chair can only function as a boat if the nature of its design allows for that. This:

cannot be used to sail across this:

If a device is made so that it specifically can function as both a chair and a boat, then it is both a chair and a boat. That does not mean that chairs and boats are the same thing. The functional requirements of a chair are entirely different from that of a boat, and a device that can serve as both must possess the functional requirements of both.

Laihendi

but you could cross it in a barrel.

you can also sit above the ground on a barrel.

so is it a boat, barrel or chair.

the answer is subjective. a man will call it what he likes depending on the situation.

function is meaningless.

"barely", "impractical", "highly" you are making the matter more subjective and adding less meaning.

And beans, until you actually substantiate your claims there will be no reason for anyone to believe you.Laihendi

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

I also think the private sector does things much better than the federal government does.

Aljosa23

Thank goodness Canada doens't have any obsession with "the private sector" and "job creators". It must suck to have incompetent governments who aren't truly able to protect their citizens.

Laihendi is the reason of why we should privatize education.