"Nature is the source of all true knowledge. She has her own logic, her own laws, she has no effect without cause nor invention without necessity." – Leonardo da Vinci
Because there are many definitions for the same word, and many words with the same meaning, effective communication requires thought and logic. Thus, it is essential to “think before you speak” and "choose your words wisely." The compulsion to speak or be heard comes from a feeling of urgency to understand or be understood.
When a message lacks sentiment it loses its meaning; without a sense of urgency, it loses importance.
Logical arguments have a formula:
Point A and Point B are the same if, and only if, factor C has the same impact on A as it does B, and the relationship between A and B always remain the same:
IF A = B,
THEN A + C = B + C
This equation is logical, if A, B, and C are all constants and never change.
However, slight variations of C may exist that are insignificantly different when it comes to A and B, but become significant when introducing a variable (D):
IF A = B,
THEN A + C = B + C,
BUT A + C + D, does NOT always = B + C + D
There are ALWAYS exceptions.
It could be that,
A + C + D = B + C + D, sometimes.
Any argument can sound logical when an exception is left out or undiscovered.
The exception can be circumstantial:
IF D changes over time (d(t)) and influences the way C interacts with A and B,
THEN, A + C + d(t1) does NOT = B + C + d(t2)
WHEN d(t1) does NOT = d(t2)
BUT…
IF d(t1) = d(t2) = D,
THEN A + C + D = B + C + D
The basis of argument stems from variations and exceptions that are circumstantial, such as events that change over time (t), where a point in time influences distance or vice-versa, and together they make a variation of an experience.
Variations can also be introduced to an argument when there are different perceptions of the same event that occurred at a particular time (T), where T is constant, and distance is variable (d):
IF d is variable and T is constant, and (d(T)) influences how C interacts with A and B,
THEN A + C + d1(T) DOES NOT = B + C + d2(T),
WHEN d1(T) DOES NOT= d2(T)
However,
IF d1(T)= d2(T) = D
THEN A + C + D= B + C + D
The same is true for when the distance is constant but the time is variable (D(t)). The view from D may look very different at specific time points.
Different Points of Views
Different points of views create arguments.
Take, for example, arguments that are created by different point perceptions or time dilation. With a different point perception (D(t)), there are different observations that give rise to different points of view of a shared event.
A difference in perception is why people don't see eye-to-eye when they argue.
A pair of humans can’t fit in a volumetric space the size of one human at the same point in time. They would have to displace one another which would take time.
Two humans can be at the same place at the same time but will take up the volumetric space of two humans.
While life is a shared an experience, it is experienced individually.
Time dilation, in the theory of relativity, is the difference between the elapsed time measured by two observers, either due to a difference in velocity, relative to one another, or a variation in position within a gravitational field (more like d(T), but when T = t2-t1)).
Take for example two people in motion observing the same event X, one is driving north at 85 mph, and the other is driving south at 35 mph. The observers may cross paths within the same instance to see event X, but due to the speed and direction in which they are moving, they gain a different perspective.
Either way, the experience and perception of reality can differ for those observing the same thing, individually.
Humans live in a multi-dimensional space where time and distance are not relevant unless there is a difference between multiple points. If there is no change over time, there is no difference between the beginning or the end. Life would be constant. What is, would always be and could never be changed or argued.
Arguing what "is", is
Because life is in constant motion, a shared experience, yet experienced individually, one can (try) to argue what 'is', is.
U.S President Bill Clinton once argued what the definition of what 'is' was to a grand jury during his impeachment trial. In his defense, he explained why it wasn’t a lie when he stated publicly, "There is no improper relationship", "There's nothing going on between us", in reference to his intern Monica Lewinsky. Which is different than saying “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky,” because the latter would be a lie that couldn't be semantically argued.
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. … Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.” — President Bill Clinton
There are many definitions for any given word, and many words with the same definition. There are many words that sound the same, but have very different meanings, and many words that sound completely different with the same meaning. There are variations of the same word to describe past, present, future, and/or plurality.
Anyone with a cunning tongue can make an irrational argument sound logical. It is why humans created complicated languages like English. It allows debators to debate fallacious arguments and others to disprove them through logical reasoning.
To err is human.
President Clinton attempted to argue a pretense as truth by articulating the tense used in his answer against the tense of the question. Somewhere between the past and the present the *truth lies, but it wasn’t in Clinton's argument about what ‘is’ is.
*The word 'lies' can be defined as to be horizontal (lie down), to patiently wait in silence (lie still), to have sex (lie with someone), to be defenseless (lie in the mercy of), to be in a specific direction (lies west), in relation to something else (lies deeper), to make a false claim (to lie), and the position of an argument somewhere in the middle (the truth lies).
As far as presidents go, Clinton got caught lying with his pants down. He wasn’t the first president nor the last president to act unpresidential in the Oval Office and lie about the details of the event that took place.
His argument for what ‘is’ is, did not fare well because it was a fallatious argument.
Those who led the impeachment, didn't start an investigative council because he was a philandering president who lied about receiving fillatio from an intern. It was led because of what some other ‘is’ was, and, the scandal allowed for the whitewashing of "Whitewatergate" without getting Clinton wet by the Ozarks.
While Clinton's semantic argument on the use of the word 'is', was not an act in and of itself, a high crime or misdemeanor, at the very least it was in err in reasoning, and to err is human.
Even to define the word 'is' sounds grammatically incorrect. 'Is' is the present tense of 'to be'. Yet, 'is' can also be used with the words 'to be' in a sentence.
December 20, 1998: This just in, President Clinton is 'to be' impeached today after arguing what 'is' is.
It is or not is: that was the question
To be true or not to be true, that is what separates a logical argument from an illogical one. The truth is always logical and is what it is, it is never something else. It is the only constant.
The truth is the events we all observe together, individually, and argue over. It takes every one of our perspectives, collectively, to get the full picture of the events we all observe.
If truth can arise at one point in time, and is discovered in a future point, it doesn't mean it wasn't always there. But, depending on who, how, and when it was discovered, it can give rise to variations, or perceptions of what that truth is. Anyone can argue a variation of a truth, and it still can be true, but not quite the truth.
Even if A + C = B + C,
It doesnt mean that A + C + D = B + C + D
If there is no change over time, there is no difference between the beginning or the end. Life would be constant. What is, would always be, and it could never be changed or argued.
Does the truth change over time? No, because the truth is always the observed event. It is and always will be what it is. The only change is the varying perceptions of the event.
It is our perspectives that change, not the events we preceive, which is why we can lie with fallacious arguments and reason with logic.
Commenti