You should realize that all these definitions obviosly only refer to beings and animation, not everything. Perhaps I should have more clearly labeled that.
: Your definition of 'death' misses a crucial point. Death
: implies formerly living, not just privation of life. A
: rock, for example, is not properly called dead. Of
: course, it's not properly called living, either, but
: that just lets you know the terms (properties, if you
: will) 'living' and 'dead' don't together, one or the
: other, apply to everything in the world. Just as, for
: example, 'even' and 'odd', which apply to (the
: natural) numbers, but not to other things. There's no
: a priori reason to expect any pair of contraries to
: apply to everything, one or the other.
And I never would indicate such! :-) I'm not quite sure what your reason is for assuming that.
Lol, you said that my definitions were flawed because it encompassed all things, instead of what you indicated I intended (just beings). Then you put words in my mouth and said that I said my definitions meant the flawed thing, even though I had no intention of such an implication. :-) Then you argued that *my* thought that life and death encompassed *all things* was false. Lol! I never said or implied such a thing! :-)
Also, there is a reason this term, as well as all the others, are so generic. It's to work, like this, to define them further. We logically see how something undead is not alive. However, the addition of that concept will bring up debate. The goal is to reach a first-point starting place to begin theorization from, knowing the understood concepts, stating otherwise if they are not being interpreted.
: Incidentally, 'defining your terms', while admirable to a
: degree, is also a classic way to play tricks of
: sophistry. We often don't fully appreciate the meaning
: of a term until it's defined 'in use'.
We understand that. My definitions are just to having a very basic starting point that we can all agree upon. Your personal assumtions about what they mean when put together are false. You assumed that "not alive" meant "oppose of alive", which is your assumption to be taken from the definitions.
I now treat your definition like any theory of such proportions presented on this Asylum, and agrue against it: There is no evidence supporting it. Your interpretation doesn't allow for undeath and unlife. Your completed definition is contradicted by what is actually observed in reality.
People are free, yes, to make assumtions as you did. However, once they present such a case, we'll be able to contradict and disprove them with what is actually observed, that a rock is not in a state of life or death, or a being, and as soon as a person would say otherwise, we'd knock them down (not that anyone would be so idiotic as to believe that anyway).
: Now, this is highly circular here,
and it's meant to be. Since both Life and Alive are undefinable in reality, describing them any further than this because extremely debatable.
: and it really gets you
: nothing
It gets us everything we need, which is all to start from.
:. If you want to do this right I suggest you
: have some point as a given and move from there.
Perhaps, but make everyone agree with it , and then we'll see :-).
: 'Life', for example, strikes me as a fair enough
: starting point.
I personally agree.
: Life; {given} [i.e., set aside for another time, assume
: we all agree on it for now, or at least that any
: differences on 'life' can be settled aside from the
: question at hand]
We can try that.
: Alive; having life
: That seems a lot simpler and less confusing to me. You
: also avoid the nonsense of 'essences', which gets you
: nothing.
I disagree. Firstly, it's used to indicate a wide range of things beyond our normal conception of life. Despite that, "alive !=(does not equal) having life." It would have to be "alive = in the state of having life" or "alive = is having life." "Alive" is an adjective. To properly form the syntax of the definition, a verb, such as "is", is required. I don't think this works as well either. I therefore kept "alive = in the state of having life." It's easier and makes more sense.
Secondly, Forrest did it :-).
: As I said earlier, this definition is mistaken.
No, it's not. The term in its most basic form, which is what I explained, doesn't disqualify what we see of as the death of a being or even undead creatures. It does, however, seem to include a couple other things.
For instance, since undeath and unlife are synonymous, a Shade can be "dead," since unlife is not living. Well, a Shade isn't living, for certain; not naturally, at least. See now why the generatlizations are so important? If not, a Shade then wouldn't be dead, and therefore contradict what we know, and limit the playing field. We don't want to limit anything by our basic definitions.
: Death; the end of life
: As is this one.
: Dead; no longer living
: Then everyone living is undead? Rocks are undead? No no
: no.
You don't understand. "Undeath" and "unlife" are both impossible to appropriately define. The only way ANY of these terms relating to life can be defined is to do it relatively, each term relative to the other in a certain way. We only care about the relationships, not actually defining and classifying forms of life (since that will be done for us).
Therefore, an extremely general definition is given. A being that is "undead" is not dead. A being that is "unalive" is not alive. The terms themselves are flawed, so how can the definitions be any more so? However, they are used to define Zombies and Vampires. The terms are naturally inexact. We shouldn't put exactitude to a definition that cannot take such without debatable alteration.
: See the sophistry you've gotten in to from
: 'defining your terms'?
I know what you're talking about, but you didn't understand the purpose of this.
: Just because undead looks like
: a composite of un- and dead doesn't mean it is.
"Undead" means "not dead". Does that mean it has to be alive? Of course not! It means the walking dead zombie things we see, which we know. "Unalive" means "not alive". Does that mean it only means dead? Not at all! It will imply that it is dead in the *real* world, since the real world has no such things as zombies (probably), but alter worlds will have such things which fall between life and death, which is why two terms classify them generally.
: And
: you've just given a classic counterexample. The sheer
: ridiculousness of the possibility that you and I and a
: rock are undead is proof that the meaning of 'undead'
: is not equivalent to the meaning of 'un-' plus the
: meaning of 'dead'.
Absolutely to the contrary. You're extrapolating something that isn't intended to be extrapolated. Nowhere does it say that these terms apply to all things, but only to "beings" of sorts, which involves properties such as life, animation, and lack thereof. You're also extrapolating the definitions to mean what you'd think they'd mean when the reality is a wide range of possibilities. There isn't the one answer of "undead means alive because it's not dead." You're replacing in your mind "not" for "the opposite of." "Undead" is not the opposite of "dead," but the absense of death. The absense of death may be classified as life technically. However, in the true use of the term, it applies to the form not living either, the zombie undead unalive middle of the road thing.
Mb we should invent a new term other than "undeath" and "unlife"? :-) We might as well lean toward that.
