Are nouns verbs? An object isn't an object unless it's being that object, which is a verb.
but how can i do something unless i'm a doer (noun)
>>84559152Isn't it the "doing" that makes on a doer? A doer who does nothing over the course of their doerhood is incorrectly labeled.
but how can i know unless i'm actively verb (knowing)
>>84559161nothing "makes" it anything. there's no causality, it's just language. saying "i eat a sandwich" and "i'm being an eater of a sandwich" are just two ways of describing the same event. Russell's theory of descriptions works equally well whether the descriptions are considered as adjectives (or relational properties) or as action verbs.
>>84559195Kant says that we know things because of experience. A priori knowledge is known before experience, but must be derived from a posteriori knowledge learned after experience.
>>84559202>just two ways of describing the same eventSo your opinion is that nouns and verbs have equivalency?
>>84559210yeah. russell's theory is that abstractions have primacy, and that particular things are just bundles of their abstract properties (redness, running-ness).
>>84559206if satisfying the antecedents to knowing is what creates someone who is currently knowing (against their will?), then there is no free will.
>>84559143The object isn't the being of the object, learn to abstract.
>>84559292explain the the difference
>>84559319The object is a collection of particles, being is the activity those particiles are participating in. Running makes you a runner, it doesn't make you the act of running.
>>84559350It makes you a person who is running, but a person is only a person if they are alive, which is an active process rather than a collection of things.
>>84559283The future has ramifications (branches) and so there is free will.
>>84559384The past also has branches. Can you be sure which branch you traveled to arrive here?
>>84559143A verb isn't heard it's an action word if you can't do it it's a noun
>>84560615>The past also has branches.How so? With the future, there are real multiple possibilities that CAN ACTUALLY INTERACT. With the past, only one thing happened.
>>84560642What nouns play no actionable roles? Even identification is an action, so if it can be named, it is doing something.
you should read On Interpretation which discusses almost everything in this thread.......
>>84561380But how can you recommend Aristotle when you're illiterate?
>>84559371>>84559350Is a runner still a runner whilst not running? And if anyone runs are they then a runner, and would they continue being a runner whilst not running? Does one become a runner, or is one merely a runner innately?
>>84561424bundle theory is at least as old as a moderns mate
>>84561435A runner who does not run over the course of their running career is incorrectly labeled. Maybe nouns can only be identified a posteriori.
>>84561436What's a moderns mate?
>>84561476Question, what provoked the negative reaction to my post when there has been no such prior behavior? I was simply making a suggestion and as a result was attacked with a charge of illiteracy, which obviously is unlikely as I am able to use this site.
>>84561485Extreme prejudice against poor grammar and rhetoric. If those are out of whack, they don't support the third leg of the trivium, logic. Don't appeal to authoritative works. Make a logical argument based on them and cite if necessary.
>>84561525ok... then i won't play with you
>>84561542EXTREME prejudice >:)
