Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by hansda, Feb 1, 2012.
This is a pholosophy question . It depends on , how you view the things .
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Or, the glass is twice as large as it needs to be. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's not a question of how you view it, it's a question of quantifying your statement. Even IF the glass could be considered half empty of WATER (which technically doesn't make sense), it certainly is not empty of air.
empty = 0
full = 1
1/2=.5, which is half of 1 (half full), not half of 0 (half empty).
The structure and logic of english grammar is not identical to the structure and logic of mathematics.
In the english language, the term "half empty" is synonymous with "half full" (vague psych-101isms about pessimism versus optimism aside) . The meanings of those phrases, which anyone who isn't intentionally trying to misconstrue can immediately see, is as follows;
"half full" Only half of the container is occupied by the substance under discussion. (In this case a drink.) It's half-way to being full. "Half empty" Only half of the container is not occupied by the substance under discussion. It's half-way to being empty.
From a language point of view one might argue that "half-full" slightly implies the level is rising, and "half-empty" slightly implies the level is falling, but if you did want to imply that, you'd probably opt for "half emptied" and "half filled".
It is true that how people want to view life is up to them. There are consequently many people who don't choose to follow any particular philosophy.
It actually doesn't show that. For some people it *might* give insight as to whether they are pessimistic or optimistic. For others it might be used for expressing a relative operation... for example if I am filling a glass I will describe its volume in terms of how full it is. If I am emptying a glass I will describe its volume in terms of how empty it is.
There's that *should* word again. Why *should* we?
Goal setting for a group of people that constitute a society is going to lead to conflict. Not everyone will agree and before you know it, people will splinter off with their own goals or absence of goals.
Your vision of better living is not the same as mine. The best you can accomplish is finding people with similar values and working with them towards your shared vision of better living. Everyone else will do their own thing.
There is that *should* word again, why *should* the choice promote less conflict and more harmony?
The goal of Life is to remain distracted enough to avoid realizing its ultimate futility.
See them driven before me
hear the lamentation of their women
Yes, humans have been slowly experimenting for centuries on what that entails. We are still looking.
This is well put.
What about "Universal Exploration and Conquer"? Or my own personal philosophy, which is simple Hedonism; Life is a (ultimately meaningless) ride so ENJOY IT. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Our immediate or intermediate goals may vary but our ultimate-goal of life should remain same and one for every human being .
YES , there has to be joy in life . That is motivation for life . Thats why i said , life is a game . With that sports-man's spirit , we should live our life .
To Understand, grow, help and enjoy.
...and conquer, lest you be conquered. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nah, to understand and help till conquering is obselete.
I *want* to agree with you but unfortunately wishing for world peace is naive, and blindly striving for it is dangerous.
Yes, but in the long run there are not many alternatives - we can be a bunch of idiots with ancient myths as our driving forces and destroy ourselves, unable to survive technological and scientific progress or we become scientific, rational, peaceful and [atleast] moderate global community.
what ancient myths would lead to destroying ourselves ?
not just science , but also Culturally sensitive
Myths which lead their followers to belief they are literal, true and inerrant - to the extent they are willing to kill others for them - Fundamentalist Christianity and extremist Islam come to mind.
simple people .......( here comes the flack )
Yes, remove Religion from society and war will end. Oh yeah, and oil. And power. And money, greed, ambition, women, territorialism...basically any competition of any sort.
A large part of our humanity is rooted in competition over limited resources. From a certain perspective war is no more evil than death -- certainly natural and possibly a necessity to progress.
Separate names with a comma.