Your Online Cup of Tea
Me: Hello Philosophically minded friends. I know you’re all bright and able minded individuals. So I have a most arduous task for your brilliant minds to tackle….
A female friend said this to and refuses to explain the meaning:
“Being related to you and not being related to you scare me equally.”
Right…. you have your challenge. Philosophise away.
Aaron: Well, Wittgenstein would just say it’s a language issue. And that’s that. Next! In this case, I think he’s right. 😉
Me: But language has meaning does it not? Or at least the speaker usually wishes to convey such? It still doesn’t tell me what the sentence means Mr. Wittgenstein 😛
Aaron: In this case, the meaning intended by the speaker is not conveyed because of their language problem. In effect, they’re speaking illogically – A can not be Not A. Short Answer: they’re silly.
Me: Could it be that they are saying being related to me scares them just as much as not being related to me, because they are scared for X reason in the first scenario and Y reason in scenario Y? Therefore the law of identity is not violated. In which case, the language is meant to emphasise the equality of the evils as opposed to being paradoxical. The question now becomes, in what sense could not being related to me, scare her just as much as being related?
Aaron: Ignoring whether or not that’s possible in this situation – context (language) is our issue here. 😛
Me: Where does that leave me then? ha
Aaron: With a language problem, void of contextual meaning. (This discussion brought to you by Wittgensteinish thought.) Really though, in sociological terms, it probably means that you bring an equal amount of appreciation as potential non-appreciation to her life so that deciding which is better (or worse) is a fools errand. Which is a great epistemicly humble remark.
There’s an answer you can both sink your teeth into or not!
Me: That is a very good analysis. Your remark about the fools errand was an interesting realisation. You are the second person to tell me this. Why am I not able to see these things? This is why I’m single.
Aaron: Do you have siblings? I’ve been trying to decipher the language of others my whole life. Though I usually just shrug all of it off and only try to remember important things… Sometimes not deeming names as important. “What’s his/her face” is a common name for me, sadly.. Ha
Me: I do have siblings, 2 sisters included ironically. But still, I tend to miss the obvious. You have to teach me a class on “Deciphering the Other.” lol
Stefan: Language is a function of metaphysics, therefore what the above text expresses is reality itself. That said, let us then try to enter into the meaning of the text.
First, before we start dissecting our text part by part, we should observe the author talks about being and not being, from which follows that this is a discussion of ontology (etym. ‘on’ / ‘onta’ in Greek means being(s), ‘logos’ principle, word, account, reason, law, etc.).
“Being” = the author is speaking in first person; it is she who has a being, in certain manner, i.e. “related to you”;
To be related means there is some kind of a relation, or a proportion; “related to you” = that is, her being is proportional to your being.
The second part of the sentence says her mode of existence is such that it excludes any relation to you.
The last part “scare me equally” shows that she deals with the either or both of the two hypotheses simultaneously (we call them hypotheses, because A and not A cannot both be true at the same time). However, that is not of our interest.
If the author is a real person, and thus exists, it must be the case that she has being, either in the first mode (being related to you), or in the second (not being related to you).
It follows then, that of necessity there is something that scares her, independent of her mode of being.
Me: That’s brilliant! I must congratulate your thorough and well written assessment of this issue. It seems then that the only thing common to both situations is grounded in me. I provide either a psychological good and ill or I’m the reason for which she benefits from a different good provided by my presence, or a real ill provided by my absence. So it may be safe to say that regardless of what I provide, she is trying to convey that she can’t live with or without me?
Stefan: I don’t think she says she can’t live (with or without you), it’s simply that there is something that scares her, regardless of her mode of being (i.e. whether she is related to you or not). I guess this is some irrational fear, though, since she is not able to locate it precisely 😀 😀 😀
But I think it does show her fear is independent of you. So don’t blame yourself. To state it otherwise, you’re not the cause of her fear. Hence, we now have a solid proof women are complicated.
Joel: My guess is it’s an origins-of-humanity speculation thing.
At the most basic level of analysis:
Either humanity all has the same ancestral origin, OR, humanity does not all have the same ancestral origin.
Both logical possibilities have interesting potential existential impacts a la geworfenheit.
Adam: I’m going to say that «related» is used in two different senses, for if they are used in the same sense the statement appears contradictory. But because people very rarely actually contradict themselves, there must be some distinction between the sense that she is related to you and the sense in which she is not related to you.
However, I’m about to go sleep. So I shall return tomorrow.
Joel: Adam, I don’t think the statement would be at all contradictory, even assuming a consistent use of the word.
It just implies that your existence is necessarily terrifying, in some way or another. 😉
Stefan: Actually, ask her about her general philosophical convictions. We have established fear exists in her, regardless of her mode of being, and independently of you, but one question remains: where does that fear come from, i.e. what actually does it depend on. Or tell her she needs to be more elaborate and more precise when using language, so as to reflect reality.
Me: 1) In what sense is it independent of me? 2) She’d call me a weirdo 3) That last one would get me slapped lol
Stefan: 1. She exists, therefore she has being 2. Regardless of her mode of being (either related to you or not), she has fear 3. Since she has fear regardless of her mode of being, “(not) related to you” bears no special importanceHence, I think it is safe to conclude she’s not trying to say you have to do anything with her fear. We could then safely reduce the text to: I am scared.
Me: She then fears a perceived ill that is caused by my absence which that is equal to an ill caused by presence. I can’t figure what that is.
Stefan: If you were to just vanish, there would be a great disturbance in the Force, and she would feel it. However, your existence must also mean that you’re stronger in the Force than her, which is why she can’t stand your presence. You can’t stand the light of the sun because it is lighter than you.
Me: So then, to resolve the situation:1) She must vanishor 2) My presence stops being troubling. Which I can do something about or…. she’s qwackers.
Stefan: No. 1 is easy. Whereas the latter means she must either become stronger in the Force than you, or you become weaker.
Me: So I must decrease, that she may increase?
Stefan: Yup. That’s it.
Me: But… that’s not fair…
|Bob Thompson on Great News! There’ll be…|
|Free Will, Evil… on The Concept of the Divine…|
|Free Will, Evil… on Response to Fr. Kimel|
|Free Will, Evil… on On the Energies of a Simple…|
|Who are you? 7 Lines… on Active Persons and Alternative…|