Why in Chinese, "asleep" is "睡覺" and "awake" is "醒覺", both with "覺" as second in the compound word/term even though the same word is pronounced differently in the two situations?
In the first, "目垂"下, 卻又有覺, 此覺是什麽覺?
In the second, "酉" 伴有星(star)然後有覺, 則此覺又是什麽覺?
2013年4月30日 星期二
2013年4月16日 星期二
East & West in Common
Many "Meaningful" English words
Hong Kong is a horrible city.
Drilling here and there!
The drilling noise is the ugliest that always drives you crazy!
But it is not forbidden, seldom or never. Why?
Are Hong Kongers crazy?
Even the sight of the word is irritating!
Why not?
Look at it carefully.
It spells:
DR... ILL...ING
Being ILL even in the presence of a doctor (DR.)!!
If you are a girl, avoid the name J...ILL, avoid it please!
No wonder the Cantonese impolite language has such a word which sounds "D'...ILL"!
Hong Kong is a horrible city.
Drilling here and there!
The drilling noise is the ugliest that always drives you crazy!
But it is not forbidden, seldom or never. Why?
Are Hong Kongers crazy?
Even the sight of the word is irritating!
Why not?
Look at it carefully.
It spells:
DR... ILL...ING
Being ILL even in the presence of a doctor (DR.)!!
If you are a girl, avoid the name J...ILL, avoid it please!
No wonder the Cantonese impolite language has such a word which sounds "D'...ILL"!
2013年4月9日 星期二
Remarkable Nietzschean Insight
Failure of human reasoning: The error of confusing cause and consequence AND what Nietzsche calls- the original sin of reason- "Immortal unreason"
To quote Nietzsche's words in his Twilight of the Idols and The Anti-Christ, page 59, Penguin, 2003:
"The newspaper reader says: this party will ruin itself if it makes errors like this. My [Nietzsche's] higher politics says: a party which makes errors like this is already finished- it is no longer secure in its instincts. Every error, of whatever kind, is a consequence of degeneration of instinct, disgregation of will..."
Is "this party" the "Birthday Party" nowadays?
Please need not ask me. Think about it yourself. Do not insult your own wisdom by asking anyone.
To quote Nietzsche's words in his Twilight of the Idols and The Anti-Christ, page 59, Penguin, 2003:
"The newspaper reader says: this party will ruin itself if it makes errors like this. My [Nietzsche's] higher politics says: a party which makes errors like this is already finished- it is no longer secure in its instincts. Every error, of whatever kind, is a consequence of degeneration of instinct, disgregation of will..."
Is "this party" the "Birthday Party" nowadays?
Please need not ask me. Think about it yourself. Do not insult your own wisdom by asking anyone.
2013年4月4日 星期四
Words said- full stop
Words said are not to be claimed:
In explaining her translation of Plato's Symposium, a lady translator says that Socrates always starts a debate by asking the opponent first and then introduces his alternative views and arguments afterwards to win.
If we believe that it is difficult to back up a new assertion but always easy to attack and crush an argument by simply offering a counter-example, we should really reassess the contribution made by the unlucky opponent and by Socrates. Who is more constructive in the sense?
And then when all the young kids appreciate his wisdom, Socrates claims his own ignorance however, indirectly mocking everybody including his admirers and followers. Is he irritating? Is he nasty and disgusting?
And then we have another character, Plato, who never claims and discloses his own thoughts but keeps quoting, repeating, and reporting what Socrates is supposed to have talked about. Whenever Plato opens his mouth, he would start: "Socrates says...." and then again: "Socrates says...."
His authority comes from his knowing Socrates. Is he irritating? Is he a coward?
A lot of words should actually be his words, but he dares not say: "I say.... "
To him, "I say..." has no market. "I say..." is weak without power. "I say..." perhaps appears blasphemous for without God, without Socrates, and then without Plato himself.
God make Socrates speak and Socrates makes him (Plato) speak on Socrates' behalf. Nobody is entitled: "I say... " in the whole respectable Western and religious world, it seems.
In this world, so many religious people never hesitate to claim whenever they open their mouths, like Plato: "God say... " and then again: "God say... " If you ask them: "what about you, what do you say?" They will stop, and stare at you as if you were a devil or a skin disease carrier.
When we learn Greek philosophy, we really should be more critical, rethink why and whether it should be justifiable that we followers should praise Socrates so much and thank Plato so much. Are they really 100% respectable mentors and masters?
And then the tradition of "he says...", "God say... ", "Mao say... ", "Michael Jackson says... ", "[Except me and never I] say... ".... Who should be responsible for promoting, extending, and accepting such irresponsible way of talking?
Unless religious people are "God's Gods", no way are they capable of knowing what God say. Forgive me to say, these religious people whose lips always stick with "God say" are insulting God, if any. By the same analogy, Plato insults Socrates. And many are insulting their icons.
In explaining her translation of Plato's Symposium, a lady translator says that Socrates always starts a debate by asking the opponent first and then introduces his alternative views and arguments afterwards to win.
If we believe that it is difficult to back up a new assertion but always easy to attack and crush an argument by simply offering a counter-example, we should really reassess the contribution made by the unlucky opponent and by Socrates. Who is more constructive in the sense?
And then when all the young kids appreciate his wisdom, Socrates claims his own ignorance however, indirectly mocking everybody including his admirers and followers. Is he irritating? Is he nasty and disgusting?
And then we have another character, Plato, who never claims and discloses his own thoughts but keeps quoting, repeating, and reporting what Socrates is supposed to have talked about. Whenever Plato opens his mouth, he would start: "Socrates says...." and then again: "Socrates says...."
His authority comes from his knowing Socrates. Is he irritating? Is he a coward?
A lot of words should actually be his words, but he dares not say: "I say.... "
To him, "I say..." has no market. "I say..." is weak without power. "I say..." perhaps appears blasphemous for without God, without Socrates, and then without Plato himself.
God make Socrates speak and Socrates makes him (Plato) speak on Socrates' behalf. Nobody is entitled: "I say... " in the whole respectable Western and religious world, it seems.
In this world, so many religious people never hesitate to claim whenever they open their mouths, like Plato: "God say... " and then again: "God say... " If you ask them: "what about you, what do you say?" They will stop, and stare at you as if you were a devil or a skin disease carrier.
When we learn Greek philosophy, we really should be more critical, rethink why and whether it should be justifiable that we followers should praise Socrates so much and thank Plato so much. Are they really 100% respectable mentors and masters?
And then the tradition of "he says...", "God say... ", "Mao say... ", "Michael Jackson says... ", "[Except me and never I] say... ".... Who should be responsible for promoting, extending, and accepting such irresponsible way of talking?
Unless religious people are "God's Gods", no way are they capable of knowing what God say. Forgive me to say, these religious people whose lips always stick with "God say" are insulting God, if any. By the same analogy, Plato insults Socrates. And many are insulting their icons.
Nature and Nurture
Discovery and Invention
Things in existence may be discovered by other species of living beings but not human beings. These things include physical objects, signs, phenomena, concept and even rules and laws of nature... Therefore discovery is not human monopoly except that perhaps only human beings know how to put down in record their achievements provided the process and outcome of discovery is regarded as achievemnets.
What about invention? How different is it from discovery, with reference to discussions above?
Are they co-dependent or independent? Or are they mutually exclusive?
Was Newton a discoverer or an inventor, or both?
Are mathematicians discoverers or inventors, or both?
Things in existence may be discovered by other species of living beings but not human beings. These things include physical objects, signs, phenomena, concept and even rules and laws of nature... Therefore discovery is not human monopoly except that perhaps only human beings know how to put down in record their achievements provided the process and outcome of discovery is regarded as achievemnets.
What about invention? How different is it from discovery, with reference to discussions above?
Are they co-dependent or independent? Or are they mutually exclusive?
Was Newton a discoverer or an inventor, or both?
Are mathematicians discoverers or inventors, or both?
2013年4月3日 星期三
Philosophy of Law and Language
Is Omission Positive or Negative, if there is such an act?
What is a Double Negative Act, if there can be negative act?
An act of omission is a legal term supposed to be "definable" and "meaningful". Such an act may constitute also an act of negligence depending on the situation.
How to perceive a situation, if any and if possible, of a guy's omitting omission? Can anyone help illustrate such a possibility with a live example in reality? What will be the probable legal implication to such guy?
If an act of omission may be caused by oversight, recklessness, poor memory, attitude of indifference, or sentiment of coldbloodiness, involving possibilities of both intentional and unintentional mentalities (i.e IM and UIM), then "to omit omission" is to do what?
Interested parties please let us be enlightened. Thanks.
What is a Double Negative Act, if there can be negative act?
An act of omission is a legal term supposed to be "definable" and "meaningful". Such an act may constitute also an act of negligence depending on the situation.
How to perceive a situation, if any and if possible, of a guy's omitting omission? Can anyone help illustrate such a possibility with a live example in reality? What will be the probable legal implication to such guy?
If an act of omission may be caused by oversight, recklessness, poor memory, attitude of indifference, or sentiment of coldbloodiness, involving possibilities of both intentional and unintentional mentalities (i.e IM and UIM), then "to omit omission" is to do what?
Interested parties please let us be enlightened. Thanks.
Mathematical Philosophy
Foundation of Mathematics and Geometry:
How many points are there on any line?
How many points are there on an infinitely long line?
How many points are there on an infinitesmally short line?
How many lines can there be in a defined area?
How many lines can there be in an infinitely large area?
How many lines can there be in an infinitesmally small area?
How many points are there in a defined volume?
How many points are there in an infinitely large volume?
How many points are there in an infinitesmally small volume?
How to define the simplest and most basic space unit, if any?
If there is an answer to the above, does it mean space is "constructable" and vice versa, "destructable"? How?
If there is really an answer to the above, then how do we perceive Kant's a priori "space"?
When we talk about a point, we know nothing about it except a defined "negation" being "no length".
When we talk about a line, we invent another 'negation" being "no area".
When we talk about an area (surface), we again come up with another "negation" being "no volume".
When we talk about a volume, what "negation" should we expect, assuming we may follow similar inductive process from the above by extension of the same logical thinking, or shouldn't we? Yes or no, and then why?
How will you deal with a person who only repeats: "Oh, no big deal... no big deal!" ??
How many points are there on any line?
How many points are there on an infinitely long line?
How many points are there on an infinitesmally short line?
How many lines can there be in a defined area?
How many lines can there be in an infinitely large area?
How many lines can there be in an infinitesmally small area?
How many points are there in a defined volume?
How many points are there in an infinitely large volume?
How many points are there in an infinitesmally small volume?
How to define the simplest and most basic space unit, if any?
If there is an answer to the above, does it mean space is "constructable" and vice versa, "destructable"? How?
If there is really an answer to the above, then how do we perceive Kant's a priori "space"?
When we talk about a point, we know nothing about it except a defined "negation" being "no length".
When we talk about a line, we invent another 'negation" being "no area".
When we talk about an area (surface), we again come up with another "negation" being "no volume".
When we talk about a volume, what "negation" should we expect, assuming we may follow similar inductive process from the above by extension of the same logical thinking, or shouldn't we? Yes or no, and then why?
How will you deal with a person who only repeats: "Oh, no big deal... no big deal!" ??
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)