================================================ Subject: Re: NCR: philosophical talk is back From: "creed -7m3 - live" To: Date: Sat 1 Sep 2001 00:04:07 -0400 ================================================ I guess you can get too far off the original intent of the question. It makes sense to me. I looked up insane in a couple of legalese dictionaries and couldn't find insane in the dictionaries that I tried. You ae right though. If you put in individual meanings of words. Factors related to personalities of those that you are debating and other factors that distract from the original question. you really never get through to the original question. I suppose it is best to use your own perspective of normal, insane, genius and the like. Otheres in the debate should also hit the question from thier understanding of the words and questions. Though, throughout the debate. your perspective of the words and questions should evolve. Delimiting the question. By debating the wordings of the question makes it hard to start off the debate. Oh well, Jim --------------------------- On Fri, 2001-08-31 at 17:53, Tara wrote: > If you spend too much time debating the meanings of words in a philosophical question, the actual question might end up being ignored. If you're debating the existence of God, and get stuck on "what is 'existence'" and arguing over which definition of God to use, you may never get around to actually discussing the question... does that make sense? > > Tara -- Finagle's Second Law: No matter what the anticipated result, there will always be someone eager to (a) misinterpret it, (b) fake it, or (c) believe it happened according to his own pet theory. To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp