0
Anonymous Posted 18 years ago
Grammar

The conflation of thing with aim does not imply attributting

0The conflation of thing with aim does not imply attributting intentions to objects, although to some extent such a case could be made.02br
02br
00The conflation, instead, casts the shadow of intention of the subject over the object.02br
02br
00It's not technically about grammar but I'm desperate here.02br
02br
00Anybody could explain what it means to me?02br
02br
00TIA.0-
  

Top answer

0 It sounds like something deeply philosophical, and an enormous context -- like several books -- might be needed to disentangle the meaning. 02br 00Have you looked up the meanings of 01i 00conflation, aim, attribute, intention, subject, and object02i 00, especially in a dictionary of philosophical terms? 02br 01i 00If you think of "thing" (object) and "aim" (purpose) as the same thing, that doesn't mean you're saying that objects have intentions.

— CalifJim

  • 0 It sounds like something deeply philosophical, and an enormous context -- like several books -- might be needed to disentangle the meaning.
  • 02br 00Have you looked up the meanings of 01i 00conflation, aim, attribute, intention, subject, and object02i 00, especially in a dictionary of philosophical terms?
  • 02br 01i 00If you think of "thing" (object) and "aim" (purpose) as the same thing, that doesn't mean you're saying that objects have intentions.
  • But, on the other hand, some people may want to say that it 01u 00does02u 00 mean that, and their reasoning is not necessarily invalid.
  • 02i 02br 01i 00Thinking of "thing" and "aim" as the same brings up the idea that the subject (an agent of action, a person) has intentions (aims, purposes) which enter into his control over things (inanimate objects).
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

2 Answers
0
0 It sounds like something deeply philosophical, and an enormous context -- like several books -- might be needed to disentangle the meaning. Philosophers often talk about ordinary things with a lot of technical terms, which makes their meanings opaque to all but the initiated.02br
00Have you looked up the meanings of 01i00conflation, aim, attribute, intention, subjec
0
0
0Here's my take:02br
02br
00A person carrying a gun doesn't mean that he will use it, although that's not an unreasonable assumption. 02br
02br
00The fact that the man even has a gun makes us feel in a certain way that he has intentions. 0-
0

Related Questions