It came up in a discussion. The point being made is that since things are changing all the time that it’s not right to use nouns to refer to then as some kind of fixed and permanent things but to use action verbs to do so. Like thinking, working, etc.
Doesn’t make sense to me since those are actions. A noun doesn’t imply the object is permanent or doesn’t change.
Well, you used “point being” correctly in that sentence. Better than I can say for some people.
It’s just that when I heard it I got into a tailspin of definitions. But I just had this notion that actions (verbs) don’t fit as “objects” (according to his version). Things change but that doesn’t make them verbs, but I don’t know the philosophical words to argue that.
XAIN - Rome is burning around and this what occupies your mind?
I don’t live in Rome so I don’t care. I care about this thing that could potentially upend how I live life or experience it. Potentially that is.
You dont live on mother earth? Are you a moron??
Good demonstration of why we have global warming. There was a moment there I thought humanity might make it. I’m back to doubting again.
I live on Earth yes, but not Rome. Ergo what happens there doesn’t concern me, and to be frank what happens to the planet doesn’t concern me either. I’m more concerned about this and the potentially mind bending implications for me (just me though, I don’t think other people would be influenced by it). I think I got it from actualized.org.
Cretin comes to mind
Huh?
Don’t let Player bother you, Xain. Most of us have learned by now to ignore 80% of what he says, and take the rest with a grain of salt.
This idea reminds me of a beautiful story by Borges, “Tlon Uqbar Orbis Tertius”. It’s about a totally fictional planet that was invented by a group of scholars. The language of Tlon was said to have no nouns either. They supposedly spoke in verbs and adjectives. I suppose that a whole nation of poets could bring that off, but for most of us language is just a rough approximation of thought anyway. Nouns are essential to make ourselves understood.
I’m kind of stuck on this one since aren’t "noun"s just the process of molecules holding together in a certain way?
I mean how can nouns be nouns when things are never permanent or unchanging?
Xian, you’re mixing up grammar and physics. You might hurt yourself.
But that was the central aspect of his argument. That because nouns refer to fixed and permanent things (and such things in real life aren’t that way) that nouns are an illusion. I’m having a rough time trying to find a way to say no to it.
Perception roughly converges reality, but is actually a controlled hallucination. Your brain just processes electrochemical signals coming in.
Objects that seem to be fixed are actually changing. Everything is in motion.
We function by making abstracted boundaries and considering the contents of those boundaries as fixed, at least long enough to take some sort of action.
Life operates with inaccurate senses, distorted perceptions, approximations, and probability estimates. Then you die.
I suggest you just accept our universe as it is, find amazement and enjoyment within your limitations, and enjoy the ride, you only go around once and it doesn’t last long.
Perception roughly converges reality, but is actually a controlled hallucination. Your brain just processes electrochemical signals coming in.Objects that seem to be fixed are actually changing. Everything is in motion.
We function by making abstracted boundaries and considering the contents of those boundaries as fixed, at least long enough to take some sort of action.
Life operates with inaccurate senses, distorted perceptions, approximations, and probability estimates. Then you die.
I suggest you just accept our universe as it is, find amazement and enjoyment within your limitations, and enjoy the ride, you only go around once and it doesn’t last long.
If I am dying of thirst, and say the noun “water” as a request, and someone gives me water, is it an illusion that I survive rather than die of thirst?