Sentences you'll never forget

[gocorygogo]

"Do you hate trash cans? Is that your problem? Do you just HATE TRASH CANS?!!"

YES THIS is the best quote ever. I will never forget it.

well that and Aximili in book 5 going crazy over coffee.

What do I do with the cup?
Throw it away

bad choice of words XD and the Radio Shack guy is all D:

and lets just say BUNZZ cause i will never see a Cinabun the same way again EVER. Aximili pops into my head as soon as I see it. wonder how many people that happened to.

    Also hilarious:"a hole in the lid, so simple yet so effective." 
                       "I guess coffee cup technology hasn't advanced that far on the andalite homeworld yet"

       I love it. Not sure if quotes are spot on but you get it.

[Kotetsu1442]

Zeno! Not only a great question asker, but the founder of Stoicism.

Oops, wrong Zeno (I guess it is just too common a name among ancient philosophers  ). Your Zeno is Zeno of Citium, he was inspired by reading works of Socrates and studied under Crates of Thebes who was a Cynic which lead him to found Stoicism. But yes, the influence that Stoicism had over the years, especially the strong influence in the Roman Empire, was really fascinating.

The Zeno behind these 'paradoxes' however was Zeno of Elea, he came before Socrates and between him and his teacher Parmenides were very influential on Socrates; in Plato's writings he describes Socrates as a young man in Athens on an occasion when Zeno and Parmenides visited it as a middle-aged and old man respectively, a very cool image of Philosophical History in its infancy.

Anyways, Zeno of Elea posed these particular problems that are flawed or limited by modern standards, but none the less it was the way he posed them that makes him worthwhile as a 'great question asker', because he basically invented reductio ad absurdum as a formal method of argument, as well as as the dialectic method of examining philosophical ideas as opposed to rhetoric; more stuff without which Socrates just wouldn't have been the same.

    Also hilarious:"a hole in the lid, so simple yet so effective." 
                       "I guess coffee cup technology hasn't advanced that far on the andalite homeworld yet"

       I love it. Not sure if quotes are spot on but you get it.

Indeed, Ax's 'backwards' (by our standards) view on human technology is a lot of fun, his view of cups and books verses computers and the internet for example. I think I laughed the most about his attempts to grapple with humans culturally though, the 'Young and restless' quotes that are already in this thread are hilarious, as well as his attempt to be a juvenile delinquent in #49 The Diversion.

[donut]

and lets just say BUNZZ cause i will never see a Cinabun the same way again EVER. Aximili pops into my head as soon as I see it. wonder how many people that happened to.

I didn't even know there was an actaul cinnabon chain, I thought it was made up for the series, when I finally saw one I did a double take and stared at it like an idiot for a minute.


[qoute]"a white ideal reached with methods both black and white is not truly white"[/quote]
I guess I'm including all things that the reached ideal implies, the consequences of all actions taken to achieve it, all things that would have happened if the ideal wasn't achieved and all things that will happen now that the ideal has been achieved.  Although I should prolly make a distinction between the ideal (the idea) and the achievable ideal (the reality), since the idea can still be white, and I think it's important to have absolutes in right and wrong as a frame of reference.

he still may be incapable of weighing the complexities of a large situation with so many different aspects and therefore endless options that all must be weighed against each other

I would say that that's applicable to really everything.  Including sticking to only white methods since actual consequences of actions can't really be determined until after they occur, a lot of unintended effects will always occur.  It goes into another of my favorite quotes from the series that I can't believe noone posted
"Maybe yes, maybe no, but things are connected in millions of ways.  They say a single butterfly, beating its wings in China, can start a tornado in America"
"yes, but how does the butterfly know when to beat its wings?"
"It doesn't, I guess it beats its wings the best it can, and hopes it will all work out."

I would also put forward that a person can't really choose to do nothing.  By choosing to do nothing a person is really choosing to allow whatever is going on to continue.  If what is going on isn't white, call it a, then the by not being willing to pursue a whiter goal b, because it involves less than ideal methods, then that person is really choosing a.  So a person doesn't really have the option to only stick to white, because when he refuses to do something to stop the black that's going on, because the methods are not purely white, then he's really choosing to allow the black to continue.


As far as the paradox goes, I'll state the problem how we stated it (it matters later)  "That to get from point A to B a person must first reach 1/2L, then he must reach 3/4L, then 7/8L and so on"
Ok, now the only math I had in the last 4 years was algebra in a gen phys class and a few stats classes and I remember precisely zilch from my calculus class, but I think that the math only showed it was possible, not how it was possible, or at least not the why.

Furthermore, his other assumption, that a given length can be infinitely divided, may in fact be false itself.

This was actually one of the solutions we came up with, that space is "digital" not "analog"
another solution that we came up with is if we view time as being a dimension exactly like xyz dimensions, then it's possible that no motion is really taking place, we're just perceiving different parts of a static object, or rather a static universe.
and finally, the solution that we eventually agreed upon, that if one wanted to travel from A to B, he would really try to go to point C which is precisely twice as far away from point A as point B is, so when he reaches the halfway point he'd arrive at his destination.

[Kotetsu1442]

and lets just say BUNZZ cause i will never see a Cinabun the same way again EVER. Aximili pops into my head as soon as I see it. wonder how many people that happened to.

I didn't even know there was an actaul cinnabon chain, I thought it was made up for the series, when I finally saw one I did a double take and stared at it like an idiot for a minute.

Sad day, you missed out for some time. Where do you live that Cinnabons aren't commonplace? With a name like yours, I expect you to get out and make yourself an expert on all delicious baked goods  .

he still may be incapable of weighing the complexities of a large situation with so many different aspects and therefore endless options that all must be weighed against each other

I would say that that's applicable to really everything.  Including sticking to only white methods since actual consequences of actions can't really be determined until after they occur, a lot of unintended effects will always occur.  It goes into another of my favorite quotes from the series that I can't believe noone posted
"Maybe yes, maybe no, but things are connected in millions of ways.  They say a single butterfly, beating its wings in China, can start a tornado in America"
"yes, but how does the butterfly know when to beat its wings?"
"It doesn't, I guess it beats its wings the best it can, and hopes it will all work out."

I agree undesired consequences can result in purely good actions; but only in conjunction with the imperfections of others and an imperfect (black and white both) world; but the difference is that a person operating in Simple Black and White is still justified in their 'white' actions even if actions and circumstances outside of their control brought about ill effects as a consequence, but person operating in Shades of Gray is only justified in using black methods if they can achieve whiter results; in possibly failing to do so or bringing about blacker unintended consequences their actions are no longer justified.

I would also put forward that a person can't really choose to do nothing.  By choosing to do nothing a person is really choosing to allow whatever is going on to continue.  If what is going on isn't white, call it a, then the by not being willing to pursue a whiter goal b, because it involves less than ideal methods, then that person is really choosing a.  So a person doesn't really have the option to only stick to white, because when he refuses to do something to stop the black that's going on, because the methods are not purely white, then he's really choosing to allow the black to continue.

I totally agree that choosing to do nothing is a decision in and of itself, as Edmond Burke put it "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," But it is false to presume that Simple Black and White ever allows choosing to do nothing. Again, I concede that some goals may not be reachable by someone refusing to use methods outside his moral principles, there is always  moral actions one can take to oppose a wrong and/or pursue a just cause. Again, I contest your assertion that ideas in general cannot be achieved without both white and black actions, such a thought is not only overly pessimistic but underrates the effectiveness of purely moral actions with respect to causality;, I again assert that plenty of great ideals can be reached by purely moral methods so there is never a need to simply standby and do nothing, such a choice is never because there is no moral action to take but is a result of unenlightened cognitive dissonance (I'm thinking of Cassie here) and cowardice.

As far as the paradox goes, I'll state the problem how we stated it (it matters later)  "That to get from point A to B a person must first reach 1/2L, then he must reach 3/4L, then 7/8L and so on"
Ok, now the only math I had in the last 4 years was algebra in a gen phys class and a few stats classes and I remember precisely zilch from my calculus class, but I think that the math only showed it was possible, not how it was possible, or at least not the why.

Well, you state the general idea of the problem well, that in order to reach a one point starting from another you have to pass through an infinite number of sub-points; but again there is no basis (other than Zero maintaining it) of assuming that passing through an infinite number of sub-points is impossible. Calculus doesn't just show that is possible, but is based off of proofs that do show that is is possible including both how and why, it in itself is an example; every time you find the area under a curve using calculus, what you are doing mathematically is taking a shape of indeterminate area and dividing it into an infinite number of rectangles of infinitely thin width and summing their areas: summing an infinite number of infinitely small things and reaching a finite result as Zeno assumed for no reason was impossible. Again, I am not considering him foolish for not having modern knowledge to draw on, but even without modern knowledge his application of reason was poor in this case, he did nothing to support his teacher's beliefs by assuming something without reason and then stating its consequences are proof that everything we have ever observed is false.

And of course, along with the assumption that "a person cannot pass through an infinite number of sub-points" being an assumption without base, so is the assumption that space is infinitely divisible, as I discussed before and as you expressed your and your friend's thoughts it is possible that

space is "digital" not "analog"

So either one of these two assumptions being false is sufficient to solve this so called paradox.

However, within the parameters of his assumptions your and your friend's conclusion do not address the problem posed. Viewing time as a fourth dimension with each instant being a static universe in series with distinct different static universes is useful to view in other thought experiments but doesn't address Zeno's problem of how from one instant in time to another an object is in one position and in the next it is in another, having passed in an instant between an infinite number of positions; this view also introduces the problem posed in Zeno's Arrow paradox: if an object is in one position in a given instant and is not moving in that instant, then it cannot reach another position in the next (a problem that isn't difficult to solve in and of itself by calling to question its own baseless assumptions, but still bringing this problem into play does nothing to solve the problem of the dichotomy paradox).

Nor does 'A to B by trying to reach C' work as a solution within the parameters of the problem, or work as an understanding of the problem that has been posed. For one thing, it doesn't describe reality as we know it because one doesn't set out to walk ten feet by trying to walk twenty then fail to walk twenty and go 'yay, I'm now ten feet further, I tricked you into serving my will reality', they simply try to walk ten feet and do so. Nor does the solution actually show an understanding of the problem and address it because it still involves passing through an infinite number of sub-points.

So those two ideas could possibly describe the way a universe functions (though 'A-to-B-via-C' would be describing a theoretical universe that isn't ours) after the dichotomy paradox is solved, but does not solve it itself; the way to do so is with the solutions that deny the baseless assumptions because it is only them that bring about impossible conclusions.

[donut]

Actually my name's a reference to a character in rvb.  I actually make a lot of references that noone ever gets but me.

I agree undesired consequences can result in purely good actions; but only in conjunction with the imperfections of others and an imperfect (black and white both) world

I'm not so sure, everything is so interconnected that it's impossible to predict everything that can happen from any action, no matter what the circumstances.  You can only say what is most likely and sometimes not even that.

the difference is that a person operating in Simple Black and White is still justified in their 'white' actions even if actions and circumstances outside of their control brought about ill effects as a consequence, but person operating in Shades of Gray is only justified in using black methods if they can achieve whiter results

Why is that?  It seems like both people have good intentions, and that both people had unintentional negative consequences.  Intentions and results are the same.

there is always  moral actions one can take to oppose a wrong and/or pursue a just cause.

there are, but if these actions are knowingly unable to stop a wrong cause or bring about a just one, then it's still a choice between allowing it to continue or taking black actions to bring about the change.

oh, and I mistakenly gave the impression that I think there are no issues that can be purely black and white and achieved with only black and white means, and I did allow it to continue for a bit  sorry about that.  But I'm not really concerned about those issues for the purposes of this conversation.  Oh, and I do have an important rule just for future reference: Every rule has an exception, including this one.

every time you find the area under a curve using calculus, what you are doing mathematically is taking a shape of indeterminate area and dividing it into an infinite number of rectangles of infinitely thin width and summing their areas:

ok, I'm not getting it, this seems to say that it is possible, and describes what happens when you perform it, but not how it's possible

However, within the parameters of his assumptions your and your friend's conclusion do not address the problem posed. Viewing time as a fourth dimension with each instant being a static universe in series with distinct different static universes is useful to view in other thought experiments but doesn't address Zeno's problem of how from one instant in time to another an object is in one position and in the next it is in another, having passed in an instant between an infinite number of positions; this view also introduces the problem posed in Zeno's Arrow paradox: if an object is in one position in a given instant and is not moving in that instant, then it cannot reach another position in the next (a problem that isn't difficult to solve in and of itself by calling to question its own baseless assumptions, but still bringing this problem into play does nothing to solve the problem of the dichotomy paradox).

I'm not sure if I'm not understanding what you're saying or if you're not understanding what I'm saying.  When I say that if we view time as being exactly like xyz dimensions, it opens up the possibility that the entire universe exists in both time and space and is unchanging, and only our perspective of it is changing since we only perceive in 3 dimensions.  Take for instance a 2d universe, in which we can only perceive 1d.  We see a dot, and this dot moves back and forth.  Then say we suddenly gain the ability to perceive 2d, and we see that the dot is really a line that has an S curve.  In reality the line never changed, only our perception of it changed through the 2nd dimension.

Nor does 'A to B by trying to reach C' work as a solution within the parameters of the problem

we were joking, and we needed a way to end the conversation.
BTW I love how in between our posts are all these on topic posts that completely ignore us.

Ok this quote isn't from the books, but I saw it in someone's sig awhile back (I can't remember who's) and I like it enough to stick it here

This isn't Goosebumps dumbass kid, start from the beginning

[Kotetsu1442]

BTW I love how in between our posts are all these on topic posts that completely ignore us.

Ok this quote isn't from the books, but I saw it in someone's sig awhile back (I can't remember who's) and I like it enough to stick it here

This isn't Goosebumps dumbass kid, start from the beginning

lol, yup. as they should; we're the ones who are off topic after all  . I think that part of the reason it is OK for us to go on with such an in-depth conversation that is off topic is that this thread's topic doesn't really involve an on-going conversation, just everyone sharing individual quotes. I love the quote too, I know the majority of the books were made to be readable on an individual basis, but if I ever catch anyone complaining that they don't get what's going on (why can Tobias turn into a human again?) I'd like to be ready to throw that quote at them  .

everything is so interconnected that it's impossible to predict everything that can happen from any action, no matter what the circumstances

Right, as I already concurred, undesired consequences can result from purely good actions, but this is only only in conjunction with other imperfections in the world around it, not a direct result of the good action in and of itself (ideally, there would be nothing to cause something good to go bad). In any case, the point that this is getting at is that a good action is justified in and of itself, it doesn't need to result in a better accomplishment to be justified retroactively, a person operating in Simple Black and White doesn't depend on circumstances outside of their control to justify their actions.

Why is that?  It seems like both people have good intentions, and that both people had unintentional negative consequences.  Intentions and results are the same.

No they are not, to take a page out of Master Yoda's book, "Do, or do not. There is no try." In fact, the point you were making is that good intentions can lead to bad results, the two are not the same. In answer to your question, why:

a person operating in Simple Black and White is still justified in their 'white' actions even if actions and circumstances outside of their control brought about ill effects as a consequence, but person operating in Shades of Gray is only justified in using black methods if they can achieve whiter results

It is because a 'white' action is one that is inherently good, taking that action is justified in and of itself because it's acceptability is self-evident; it does not need a justifier. Even if a negative consequence occurs, the 'white' action is still justified because it does not depend on the results to be justified. On the other hand, a 'black' action requires a 'whiter' result as justification, it is not justified in and of itself; so if it has undesired consequences the action is no longer justified.

To put it in simple terms:

P and Y are two white outcomes, Q is the justification of a black action; X is a white action that is inherently justified:

P is the justifier for Q

Therefore, whether Y or Not Y, X; but if P then Q, if Not P then Not Q.

The problem is that action Q has is that it depends on P but since you cannot determine whether P will successfully come about then you cannot determine that Q is true until after the fact, while X is independent of Y so it doesn't even if Y is unsuccessful X is still justified.



With your 'time dimension' answer, I was misunderstanding what you were saying before; it makes sense now. In essence, you are agreeing with Parmenides that the universe is all One whole, with different xyz properties throughout its 't' (time) dimension, thus all motion is an illusion created by our limited perspective; which is the idea Zeno was trying to support.

[donut]

So... the ends justify the means?

[AnyaSciarra]

Zeno! Not only a great question asker, but the founder of Stoicism.

Oops, wrong Zeno (I guess it is just too common a name among ancient philosophers  ). Your Zeno is Zeno of Citium, he was inspired by reading works of Socrates and studied under Crates of Thebes who was a Cynic which lead him to found Stoicism. But yes, the influence that Stoicism had over the years, especially the strong influence in the Roman Empire, was really fascinating.

The Zeno behind these 'paradoxes' however was Zeno of Elea, he came before Socrates and between him and his teacher Parmenides were very influential on Socrates; in Plato's writings he describes Socrates as a young man in Athens on an occasion when Zeno and Parmenides visited it as a middle-aged and old man respectively, a very cool image of Philosophical History in its infancy.

Anyways, Zeno of Elea posed these particular problems that are flawed or limited by modern standards, but none the less it was the way he posed them that makes him worthwhile as a 'great question asker', because he basically invented reductio ad absurdum as a formal method of argument, as well as as the dialectic method of examining philosophical ideas as opposed to rhetoric; more stuff without which Socrates just wouldn't have been the same.

    Also hilarious:"a hole in the lid, so simple yet so effective." 
                       "I guess coffee cup technology hasn't advanced that far on the andalite homeworld yet"

       I love it. Not sure if quotes are spot on but you get it.

Indeed, Ax's 'backwards' (by our standards) view on human technology is a lot of fun, his view of cups and books verses computers and the internet for example. I think I laughed the most about his attempts to grapple with humans culturally though, the 'Young and restless' quotes that are already in this thread are hilarious, as well as his attempt to be a juvenile delinquent in #49 The Diversion.

Okay, thanks for the clear-up.

I personally am a fan of Diogenes, and I was a cynic until I started reading Atlas Shrugged. Now I'm just nuts.

[Shock]

So... the ends justify the means?

as i recall, America dropped two atomic bombs on japan. the other option was to sent over a thousand military troops into it where they estimated that more than half of those would die.

[Alex Oiknine]

My favorite quote is also my avatar.

I also like Ax's quote about being a juvenile delinquent, Jake's spew on how did he save if he spent (shopping with Rachel for his mom's gift), and a lot of those quotes that were really just in there for my entertainment XD

Also, Ax's "I wish to defect. I would like to become a Controller. Do I have to pay for membership? Is there a fee?" Or something along those lines from the one where they all end up on the Leeran home planet.

Basically, I like to keep my favorite quotes light.

[donut]

So... the ends justify the means?


as i recall, America dropped two atomic bombs on japan. the other option was to sent over a thousand military troops into it where they estimated that more than half of those would die.

ok, I get not reading the previous posts on this (if I just wondered up to it I wouldn't want to read those monstrosities) but rather than reiterate everything we've been talking about, I'm just going to say read through what we've already posted.



"Resists us and we'll sneeze in your general direction"

[Seventhsage]

"Next Mission, guys only"

I think Tobias said it, when Cassie and Rachel were drooling over JJM.  Might have been marco, I'm sure someone will tell me eventually.

[Kotetsu1442]

So... the ends justify the means?

No, in taking the position of 'Simple Black and White' the argument that I have built up establishes that the ends do not justify the means; that attempting to justify the means based on the end rather than using means that are themselves justified leaves means that don't end up justified.

"Next Mission, guys only"

I think Tobias said it, when Cassie and Rachel were drooling over JJM.  Might have been marco, I'm sure someone will tell me eventually.

Right idea, but it was the opposite situation. The guys were nerding-out over Star Trek ideas in #35, The Proposal, and Rachel said "Next Mission: Girls Only." The dialog was kinda like you remembered it in #12, The Reaction though, but I think it only went as far as Rachel and Cassie exchanging those drooling lines ('It looks like we'll have to do our duty and investigate this guy' 'I guess that means we're going to have to meet him' 'And get close' 'Really close') and the guys commenting about how they were going to be sick (Yup, you're right, there's nerds like me who remember enough context to know exactly which book it has to be in and find it in no time ).

[Alex Oiknine]

"We're still the same, right?"

[crystalclear]

16

"Is that a bear?"

"Yeah"

"Is it mopping the floor?"

"Uh-huh."

"Have we gone nuts?"

"I'm not nuts. It's the bear who's nuts. That's carpeted up there."

 

When I read this the first time I couldn't help laughing. Luckily I was alone in my room. I don't laugh easily from reading, so that's a rare. In fact, that's the only scene in the entire series that could make me laugh.

Also, this made me smile:

<The salads are supposed to be served in ten of our minutes,> Jake went on. <l mean, ten minutes. Are you in place?>