Please point out an error in spelling, grammar, or sentence structure.
The sentence may be grammatically correct, but I don’t see what you mean. How is law knowledge? What do you mean by “existence of life” - existence of surviving humans? What is perceived by human senses - life or the existence/nonexistence of life? I’m at least seven steps away from having any idea what you’re getting at, so feel free to elaborate. No need to pack it all into one line.
What is required to further your understanding of the sentence:
discussion of clauses and sentences?
discussion of word definitions?
discussion of sentence structure?
If I write a sentence using well defined words with no errors in grammar, spelling, or structure what else do you expect of me to convey a thought?
There are two possibilities:
-
The sentence is true or false.
-
The sentence contains errors.
I am unable to respond because you have cited no errors or no reasons the statement is false. “I don’t see what you mean” indicates you do not understand the definition of a word, words, or the relationship of one clause to another. Neither of which is related to whether the sentence is true or false or whether the sentence contains errors.
How is law knowledge? What do you mean by “existence of life” - the existence of surviving humans? What is perceived by human senses - life or the existence/nonexistence of life?
Traffic law is the knowledge of human actions eligible for economic penalty or infringement of liberty when traveling public property.
I will respond when you articulate an objection. Please refer to my previous post.
This is going nowhere. (He can’t articulate an objection as you are being too vague)
I will be sure to use that argument in the future.
I am sorry you are being vague and therefore your statement is invalid despite my inability to articulate the reasons it is vague.
I am sorry Austrian economics is invalid because it is vague despite my inability to articulate the reasons it is vague…
That is not intellectual dialogue.
I do not find the sentence vague. I defined natural law as a type of knowledge. The specific knowledge of human actions that result in existence or non-existence of life perceived by human senses.
Since concepts of existence and non-existence are vague I conditioned existence and non-existence of life with the ability to perceive them by human senses.
Knowledge is a clearly defined concept.
Human action is a clearly defined concept.
Life is a clearly defined concept.
Human senses are a clearly defined concept
Existence or non-existence of life perceivable by human senses is a clearly defined concept.
I am being vague?
Honestly, you are being almost caricature-level vague. Is there some reason you’re adverse to paraphrasing or elaborating? You say I haven’t pointed out what is vague in your sentence, but I have: the three questions you still haven’t answered (one you hinted at in a roundabout way, which I suppose is good enough for now, but what about the other two?).
Are you under the impression that stringing together a bunch of well-defined English words in a sentence automatically makes a well-defined and understandable sentence? Just try saying it in a different way, or unpacking some of the concepts. For instance, “life” can mean all sorts of things. Flourishing, existence, survival, human life, etc.
Calm down. 1. Saying “please elaborate” isn’t an argument. 2. Nobody said your statement was invalid, rather it couldn’t be validated, hence the requests.
Austrian economics has a well written history, where the terms are extensively defined.
No, it is a very complex concept.
No, in fact Mises even had to define human and action to fully explain what he meant by human action. (Generous as he was he didn’t just say human and action are clearly defined concepts and leave it at that)
Hardly, “life” has been used to mean a multitude of different things.
No, how people perceive phenomena is hotly debated.
Quite.
I had to look up caricature to understand what you meant by caricature-level vague.
By looking at the caricature wiki I still do not understand your meaning of caricature-level vague. Defined in the wiki as a description of a person using exaggeration of some characteristics and oversimplification of others I am assuming you are making a reference to a person I do not know.
My point here is that I am able to convey why I do not understand your meaning. My initial lack of understanding of your meaning was because I was not familiar with the word. My present lack of understanding to your meaning is because I do not know who you are describing and how they relate to me.
I am not adverse to paraphrasing or elaborating. I simply do not know how to respond to “I don’t get your meaning”. Such a comment provides no opportunity for discussion. I am not under the impression stringing together a bunch of well-defined words automatically makes an understandable sentence. I elaborated on that. I said a sentence can be true or false or contain errors. Beyond that the only opportunity for conversation is discussing the definition of words, sentence structure or how clauses relate to one another, etc.
I can respond to your citation life can mean all sorts of things. The definitions of the words I am using.
Knowledge is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education
Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes from those that do not[1][2] —either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as "inanimate.
Humans are bipedal primates belonging to the species Homo sapiens
The traditional five senses are sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste: a classification attributed to Aristotle
Some would prefer to define actions as requiring bodily movement
Perceive - to attain awareness or understanding
After review of common wiki definitions I will rephrase my original statement to reduce the assertion of vagueness due to certain words having multiple definitions.
Natural law is knowledge of human actions involving bodily movement resulting in existence or non-existence of human life perceived by the five traditional human senses.
-or-
Natural law is a subset of knowledge.
Knowledge about human actions that involve bodily movement.
Actions that result in existence or non-existence of human life.
Existence or non-existence of human life that is perceivable by the traditional five human senses.
I am not upset. You mistake bluntness for emotion. I questioned the original reply asking if word definitions or sentence structure was in question and the reply was a re-post. Your reply clearly articulates the source of vagueness and it appears the source of perceived vagueness is contained within the definition of words. That is something a person can respond to.
I see this thread being moderated now since I got a message making my last post before I seen this reply…
When you post too many links, posts get automatically moderated.
However, the level of debate in this thread is now embarrassing with people arguing over definitions. Let’s aim for a debate on substance and ideas, not semantics and grammar.
Natural law is acquired expertise of particular bipedal primates bodily movement resulting in existence or non-existence of said bipedal primates self-sustaining biological process understood by the five traditional bipedal primate senses.
Thank you, this is a quite a bit clearer. Do you mean that natural law is knowledge concerning the question, “Which human actions result in creation or destruction of human life?”?
I can’t understand “resulting in existence or non-existence” to mean anything else, so I assume creation or destruction (killing?). Further elaboration is welcome. Perhaps you mean contributing to or diminishing human life (flourishing)? Your definition points to the use of the word “life” as in life vs. death (i.e., state of being alive vs. being dead), which is why I interpreted it as creation or destruction of human life and not in terms of flourishing.
Yes, I was referring to a state of being alive vs. dead.
Thank you for explaining that. I will refrain from including links that are not important in future posts.
The idea I have about natural law is that of a social contract. I read this article about Narveson’s book where a similar idea is in: http://mises.org/daily/3755
Everyones ultimate preference is to have the NAP apply to them. Every ego in the universe has the same ultimate idea. So as far as any universal cooperation between egos can go, it can only go as far as to construct a system which takes care of that preference of egos. And since its the highest preference of egos, itis the first on the list of actions the ego does to take care of it.
Damn, no opinions on this idea? gonna bump it.
social ‘contract’ theory is an abomination of thought.
it involves assuming that people have formed contracts without evidence that they did.
are these -title transfer- contracts or ‘promise’ contracts?