“A Pony is a Cow” - Brief thoughts on the seeming death of logic and linguistic rigor.
I wrote the following after discussions with several individuals blew my mind for their strange lack of concern for clearly defined premises and definitions.
This is something which should go without saying:
Words have definitions, and actual meanings.
Just because I say a pony is a “cow,” does not make the pony an actual cow.
”This is not a pipe.”
We can argue, if you choose to call what is biologically a “cow” a “pony,” and then we will have semantic troubles.
The whole time, though, the reality of what a cow and pony actually are, has not changed, regardless of the terms we use to describe and denote them.
How much easier it would be, though, to define our terms at the outset of the discussion, and use that as the foundation for debate?
This is a car.
You can tell me, for example, that “Voluntaryism” means X, Y, or Z.
There is a standard and commonly accepted linguistic definition for the philosophy, with fairly clear parameters.
If you insist it must include other qualifiers, or is actually something totally different, then you have not changed anything about the thing the other party is actually attempting to speak of, but are simply seeking to create a special use case, or to assign the term to something entirely different, altogether.
This can be a great thing, too! Don’t get me wrong. Language evolves, and if you change it, and the market of meaning picks it up, good on ya!
You will find it difficult to be understood and communicate, however, if you do not understand and seek to accomodate—even in the interest of destroying—certain linguistic conventions.
So if you wish to call a cow a “pony,” go ahead. But is it really such a surprise when you are not understood?
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as DLive and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)
cute lol
can't wait to eat that pony...
That’s it!
You got a 7.14% upvote from @emperorofnaps courtesy of @tedpledger!
Want to promote your posts too? Send 0.05+ SBD or STEEM to @emperorofnaps to receive a share of a full upvote every 2.4 hours...Then go relax and take a nap!
calling someone a "front hole" is quite satisfying.
Hi @kafkanarchy84! We are @steem-ua, a new Steem dApp, computing UserAuthority for all accounts on Steem. Starting from the witnesses, UA propagates from user to user based on its followers until equilibirum is reached. We are currently in test modus upvoting quality contributions with a high UA value (UA_author + UA_post)! Your UA_post value is 47.695.
The term "chaos" is exceedingly problematic. It's used often and haphazardly, but in reality, there's no such thing as chaos. It denotes a lack of order, but cause-and-effect always applies.
I would use the term figuratively to indicate phenomena that plays out on the "negative" side of cause-and-effect (negative meaning undesirable or counterproductive relative to the inherent lifeward striving of living beings). Man's order is chaos by this definition, as (being a denial of reality; namely the reality of man's free will autonomy) it counteracts the healthy, authentic, positive functioning of the natural order.
For (anti) political anarchy to be described as chaos is entirely incorrect. But since man's order is order in some sense (albeit negative order), many believe its absence means a lack of order. Of course, this requires one to wholly ignore the natural order, and thus everything in physical existence (and perhaps beyond), since cause-and-effect order reigns supreme in the universe at large. Far be it from mind-controlled statists to be averse to that oversight, however, as nothing serves their position as faithfully as ignorance.