0
Anonymous Posted 18 years ago
Grammar
Self-interest, or rather self-love
Full extract:
Self-interest, or rather self-love, or egoism, has been more plausibly substituted as the basis of morality. But I consider our relations with others as constituting the boundaries of morality. With ourselves, we stand on the ground of identity, not of relation, which last, requiring two subjects, excludes self-love confined to a single one. To ourselves, in strict language, we can owe no duties, obligation requiring also two parties. Self-love, therefore, is no part of morality. Indeed, it is exactly its counterpart.
Sentence:
With ourselves, we stand on the ground of identity, not of relation, which last, requiring two subjects, excludes self-love confined to a single one. To ourselves, in strict language, we can owe no duties,
What does he mean by last???
By "single one" does he refer to oneself?
Self-interest, or rather self-love, or egoism, has been more plausibly substituted as the basis of morality. But I consider our relations with others as constituting the boundaries of morality. With ourselves, we stand on the ground of identity, not of relation, which last, requiring two subjects, excludes self-love confined to a single one. To ourselves, in strict language, we can owe no duties, obligation requiring also two parties. Self-love, therefore, is no part of morality. Indeed, it is exactly its counterpart.
Sentence:
With ourselves, we stand on the ground of identity, not of relation, which last, requiring two subjects, excludes self-love confined to a single one. To ourselves, in strict language, we can owe no duties,
What does he mean by last???
By "single one" does he refer to oneself?
Top answer
Full extract: Self-interest, or rather self-love, or egoism, has been more plausibly substituted as the basis of morality. But I consider our relations with others as constituting the boundaries of morality. With ourselves, we stand on the ground of identity, not of relation, which last, requiring two subjects, excludes self-love confined to a single one.
- Full extract: Self-interest, or rather self-love, or egoism, has been more plausibly substituted as the basis of morality.
- But I consider our relations with others as constituting the boundaries of morality.
- With ourselves, we stand on the ground of identity, not of relation, which last, requiring two subjects, excludes self-love confined to a single one.
- To ourselves, in strict language, we can owe no duties, obligation requiring also two parties.
- Self-love, therefore, is no part of morality.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
17 Answers
0
Full extract:
Self-interest, or rather self-love, or egoism, has been more plausibly substituted as the basis of morality. But I consider our relations with others as constituting the boundaries of morality. With ourselves, we stand on the ground of identity, not of relation, which last, requiring two subjects, excludes self-love confined to a single one. To ourselves, in strict language
Self-interest, or rather self-love, or egoism, has been more plausibly substituted as the basis of morality. But I consider our relations with others as constituting the boundaries of morality. With ourselves, we stand on the ground of identity, not of relation, which last, requiring two subjects, excludes self-love confined to a single one. To ourselves, in strict language
00
0
Hi again,
No, don't say that. It's not idiomatic.
I hope you won't be offended if I point out that you have said neither 'please' nor 'thank you' so far.
Clive
No, don't say that. It's not idiomatic.
I hope you won't be offended if I point out that you have said neither 'please' nor 'thank you' so far.
Clive
00
Thank you.
However, I have another question.
Are which first and which last idiomatic???
However, I have another question.
Are which first and which last idiomatic???
00
Hi,
You're welcome.
'Which first' is not idiomatic. And 'which last' seems literary and even rather old-fashioned. People ceratinly don't go around talking like that today.
Don't forget that Jefferson wrote this letter a long time ago.
Best wishes again, Clive
You're welcome.
'Which first' is not idiomatic. And 'which last' seems literary and even rather old-fashioned. People ceratinly don't go around talking like that today.
Don't forget that Jefferson wrote this letter a long time ago.
Best wishes again, Clive
00
0
A game of chess is a finite sequence of states of which first is the initial state, the last is a terminal state, an each state-transition is permissible. Two games are formally identical if they are identical state by state.
Are you sure which first is not idiomatic?
Are you sure which first is not idiomatic?
00
Hi,
A game of chess is a finite sequence of states of which first is the initial state, the last is a terminal state, an each state-transition is permissible. Two games are formally identical if they are identical state by state.
Are you sure which first is not idiomatic?
This is a different kind of syntax which does not even use the term we were originally
A game of chess is a finite sequence of states of which first is the initial state, the last is a terminal state, an each state-transition is permissible. Two games are formally identical if they are identical state by state.
Are you sure which first is not idiomatic?
This is a different kind of syntax which does not even use the term we were originally
00
Ok, thanks.
I find it extremely annoying though, that you can't say anything that refers to what I want.
I find it extremely annoying though, that you can't say anything that refers to what I want.
00
Related Questions