I disagree! This presupposes too much moral theory. That’s not a question of #grammar (or better, #semantics), but of #philosophy. Whether immorality presupposes conscious wrong-doing that’s an open question.
Let me engage in some armchair semantics. I think “amoral” is more naturally applied to actions, rather than persons. At least that’s a better example to explain the term to someone, e.g. wearing a pink or a red shirt in most situations is amoral.
‘The world is my representation’ is, like the axioms of Euclid, a proposition which everyone must recognise as true as soon as he understands it, although it is not a proposition that everyone understands as soon as he hears it.
“
| — | Arthur Schopenhauer: The World as Will and Representation (translated by E. F. J. Payne) (via fuckyeahphilosophy) (via recursiverecursion) |
submitted by Natalia Luna
The paradox of the solution to the paradox of tolerance: you can be intolerant in defining who’s the intolerant.
I don’t feel the least humble before the vastness of the heavens. The stars may be large, but they cannot think or love; and these are qualities which impress me far more than size does.
“
| — | Frank P. Ramsey |
A simple maze not solvable by following a wall. Starting point in red. Following a wall will lead to going in circles around an island. Any 2D maze like this must be “point A to point B” type though — all “entrance to exit” mazes can indeed be solved by the wall method.
Thanks a lot! So if you wake up in the middle of a labyrinth, no hand-in-wall. Only if you wake up at the entrance. I’ll be sure to remember.
Apparently the hand-in-wall method won’t get you out of any labyrinth. I am utterly disappointed. Thanks imaginaryprisons.
