|
When did I insult your whole genre? I was insulting a song |
|
|
'crappy song' implies that you're bashing the whole genre of music that sounds similar TO that song.
Amiraight?
Mhm. I am. |
|
MendezioJoin Date: 2008-11-24
Post Count: 4392 |
I could expand on my theory, and "prove" some of your favorite bands less "talented" than those of mine. |
|
MendezioJoin Date: 2008-11-24
Post Count: 4392 |
Starting a debate with me regarding talent is often a losing battle. |
|
|
@mendizio oh hello there haven't seen you on the MT forums in quite some time.
~*♪#¥£ smile to get high £¥#♪*~
|
|
|
Mendezio is using phrases and/or word groupings that he has NO idea how to comprehend.
Just look at his last posts--they all have "rambing sounding" words in them, because he's trying to fill the void with words at which he barely understands.
Basically, he's trying to cover up his ignorance with words that sound bigger than he actually is.
That's what it looks like to me; that's what I'll jump to.
|
|
MendezioJoin Date: 2008-11-24
Post Count: 4392 |
It's a rather difficult task to assign an English word to a non-physical essence. We can call “work” a task, but it’s much harder to assign an English word to the task’s essence.
Work is a non-physical object. The ability/nature of the non-physical object is rather difficult to define.
Example:
It is easy to say: “someone moved a box”. It is far more difficult to say: “The movements are “talented,” and make complete sense. Talent is the ability to accomplish a “task,” thus “talent” is a non-physical object’s essence/ability.
So excuse me if you can’t assign words to non-physical beings.
|
|
zct2Join Date: 2008-02-09
Post Count: 2108 |
Work isnt a being you twit.
That implies that it`s alive and can think.
And we can attach words to non-physical beings.
Look Christianity did with the word god, the attached it to their NON-physical imaginary freind. |
|
|
"Look Christianity did with the word god, the attached it to their NON-physical imaginary freind."
Are you an atheist?
Some people have other beliefs.
(EDIT: I'm Catholic and I took that as an insult)
|
|
zct2Join Date: 2008-02-09
Post Count: 2108 |
It was suposed to be insulting.
And maybe I am and maybe im not.
Who cares? |
|
MendezioJoin Date: 2008-11-24
Post Count: 4392 |
"Non-physical" means not of the physical universe. I’m not much of a Bible scholar, but I’m pretty sure that God is not a physical object. He is a good example of a non-physical being though.
Yes... work is a non-physical being, just yet to be defined. |
|
MendezioJoin Date: 2008-11-24
Post Count: 4392 |
Non-physical doesn't mean "not-real," or fake. |
|
MendezioJoin Date: 2008-11-24
Post Count: 4392 |
And we can attach words to non-physical beings.
------------------------------------
Yes, but the words will not make sense. Try defining God…
|
|
|
Mendezio, why not join the MT Proboards?
Look in the MT group for the link. |
|
|
"Work" is the "ability to move an object with an equal amount of force."
Putting "work" into something means to technically "move" it.
"Talent(in this modern society)" is derived from the meaning of the word "exceptional."
Example:
That person is exceptionally talented at doing the said-thing.
We disregard the real meanings and replace it with lesser, unrealistic meanings, THEN, it floats throughout society, poisoning the minds of everyone.
The literal term is gone now.
End. |
|
MendezioJoin Date: 2008-11-24
Post Count: 4392 |
Yes, the object that moves are physical, but the motion itself is not a physical object. You can’t bring me motion.
If motion is non-physical, the abilty/essence of it cannot me defined. For motion to influence physical objects it must have ability (talent) (force) (ect.). It’s just we can’t define such abilty/essence because we cannot relate it with a physical object.
Physical objects must have value; that value is their existence so we say that they have a positive value of one. Non-physical objects have a value too, that value is their existence in their non-physical universe so we give them a value of negative one.
-1, 0, 1
Let one equal physical objects, and let negative one be non-physical objects. Let zero equal a state of complete entropy and void.
P = -P^2
(Physical objects = non-physical objects to the second power.)
P + -P = O
(Physical objects plus non-physical objects = 100% entropy.)
I could go on about this for days.
This isn’t basic high-school thermodynamics.
|
|
|
You're simply going on and on about a subject that's completely irrelevant.
Care to stop trying to impose your "said-knowledge" on us?
You know that no one would understand this--not even yourself.
Trust me, you don't. :3 |
|
zct2Join Date: 2008-02-09
Post Count: 2108 |
Stop with the wikipedia copypasta |
|
MendezioJoin Date: 2008-11-24
Post Count: 4392 |
... I study philosophy, this is simple metaphysics.
This is relevant because talent and ability is the same thing.
I have studied talent ever since I started liking music. I wanted to understand why I like music that I should hate. If such music isn’t talented there is no reason to like it…
|
|
|
"Talent" isn't something to study.
Basically, in today's society, that's what you're based on--a simple "test" of your abilities.
The said-abilities' ratings depend on the effort put into it, and the output made by the effort, and, of course, judgement.
Once again, "If such music isn't talented there is no reason to like it..." simply makes you contradict you and your "studies."
You say that everything is "talented," basically, with your copy and paste, and yet you contradict yourself with that very sentence.
"Talent" is an idea formed from personal opinions--nothing more.
End. |
|
MendezioJoin Date: 2008-11-24
Post Count: 4392 |
I wasn't meaning talent to be abilty, I was using it to mean "aesthetic value" or what appeals people to like art. If such value is zero (no talent) then the music isn't art and shouldn't be liked.
See the problem in defining non-physical objects. You have one word that means so many things. |
|
MendezioJoin Date: 2008-11-24
Post Count: 4392 |
That is the part I don't expect people to understand. |
|
|
People CAN'T understand it because it's BASED ON THEIR OPINIONS TO IF THEY THINK IT'S "TALENT" OR NOT. |
|
MendezioJoin Date: 2008-11-24
Post Count: 4392 |
Talent is just a matter of personal opinion.
Forming an opinion is a task, and the task must need abilty (talent) to execute itself.
|
|
|
No.
Forming opinions is a matter of intellectual competence.
That's ALL it is. |
|