1) How should human beings behave? That is to say, are there are any general principles by which humans should abide as a rule, and if so, what are they?
2)If you had to attach the name of God to something, what would that thing be? Pick something which you believe to be.
Careful, now. We could analyze either of these questions into obscurity. But that avoids the point, so let's avoid that for the time being.
Two questions.
-
Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: Two questions.
But the questions already contain so much! It's this asking to avoid analysis that's making the exercise more acadamic and harmless - obselete!
My answers though:
1) Principles are derived from behavior. Like "the principle of electricity generation". It's not something one then tries to coherce electricity into. One can uphold principles as mirror, to remind people how they are already operating. It increases awareness of whatever it is they are doing.
2) Any name is already attached by reference. Attaching a name to anything is pointless since it's already the case, that is why it's called a name. But one could try to find out how the name came to be, tracing the attachment once spoken.
My answers though:
1) Principles are derived from behavior. Like "the principle of electricity generation". It's not something one then tries to coherce electricity into. One can uphold principles as mirror, to remind people how they are already operating. It increases awareness of whatever it is they are doing.
2) Any name is already attached by reference. Attaching a name to anything is pointless since it's already the case, that is why it's called a name. But one could try to find out how the name came to be, tracing the attachment once spoken.
Re: Two questions.
Granted. However, I have yet to see a question to which this criticism does not apply. Further, it's awfully easy to weasel a question into a form that I like more by analyzing it. Swallowing the whole thing makes for more interesting discussions, if you ask me.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But the questions already contain so much! It's this asking to avoid analysis that's making the exercise more acadamic and harmless - obselete!
Good, good.1) Principles are derived from behavior. Like "the principle of electricity generation". It's not something one then tries to coherce electricity into. One can uphold principles as mirror, to remind people how they are already operating. It increases awareness of whatever it is they are doing.
I will grant this. However, when a name has been attached to many things, it becomes quite malleable, non?2) Any name is already attached by reference. Attaching a name to anything is pointless since it's already the case, that is why it's called a name. But one could try to find out how the name came to be, tracing the attachment once spoken.