Ontology:Q36,67 - Revision history

Reversedragon: page alias / browser title

2025-08-15T04:01:45Z

page alias / browser title

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:01, 15 August 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{HueCSS}}<!-- {{BopCSS}}		{{HueCSS}}<!-- {{BopCSS}} --><ol class="hue clean compound"><li> {{ArticleTitle\|Nothing should be done unless everybody considers it wonderful / The ends, the means - ES / Q36,67}}
	--><ol class="hue clean compound"><li>		<onlyinclude><dfn class="field_exstruct manual" data-dimension="S2" data-qid="36,67" data-field="" data-series="" data-work="" data-chapter="" data-tale="" data-object="" data-note="" data-lexeme="">{{IS2}}{{#if: {{{1\|}}} \| [[E:Q36,67\|{{{1}}}]] \| [[E:Q36,67\|Nothing should be done unless everybody considers it wonderful]] }}{{WaveScore\|sum=1\|quilt=1\|ply=1\|enddfn=1}}</onlyinclude>
	<onlyinclude><dfn class="field_exstruct manual" data-dimension="S2" data-qid="~~3667~~" data-field="" data-series="" data-work="" data-chapter="" data-tale="" data-object="" data-note="" data-lexeme="">{{IS2}}{{#if: {{{1\|}}} \| [[~~Ontology~~:~~{{{1}}}~~\|{{{1}}}]] \| [[~~Ontology~~:~~Q3667~~\|Nothing should be done unless everybody considers it wonderful]] }}{{WaveScore\|sum=1\|quilt=1\|ply=1}}~~</dfn>~~</onlyinclude> ~~__NOTOC__~~		</li></ol><!-- change summary template: copy or update fake Item from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN\|Q36,67]] --> __NOTOC__
	</li></ol><!-- change summary template: copy or update fake Item from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN\|~~Q3667~~]] -->

	== ~~Characteristics in draft ==~~		== Core characteristics ==

	~~=== Properties =~~==

	<dl class="wikitable hue">		<dl class="wikitable hue">
	~~{{HueClaim\|P=plaintext page title (en)\| <code>[S2] Nothing should be done unless everybody considers it wonderful / The ends, the means - ES / Q3667 - Litho-Graph-ica</code> }}~~		{{HueClaim \|P=item type\| {{Template:S2}} }}
	{{HueClaim\|P=item type\| {{Template:S2}} }}		{{HueRoster\|EP=PPPA/L\|lang=en\| {{E:Q36,67}} \| [[E:Nothing should be done unless everybody considers it wonderful]] }}
	{{HueRoster\|P=~~label (~~en)\| {{~~Ontology~~:~~Q3667~~}} }}		{{HueClaim \|EP=PPPA\|lang=en\| Nothing should be done without a reason everybody on earth considers wonderful \| The ends cannot justify the means \| The reason for doing something can never justify the method used to do it \| "they had such good reasons for doing what they did that the ends justify the means" \| Is some particular set of goals enough to justify a particular plan to achieve it? (rhetorical question) }}
	{{HueClaim\|P=~~alias (~~en)\| Nothing should be done without a reason everybody on earth considers wonderful }}		{{HueRoster\|EP=P42\| {{Ontology:Q3666}} }} <!-- en: QID references -->
	~~{{HueClaim\|P=alias (en)~~\| The ends cannot justify the means \| The reason for doing something can never justify the method used to do it \| "they had such good reasons for doing what they did that the ends justify the means" }}		{{HueRoster\|EP=P42\| Free Will }} <!-- en: color swatch references -->
	~~{{HueClaim\|P=alias (en)~~\| Is some particular set of goals enough to justify a particular plan to achieve it? (rhetorical question) }}		{{HueRoster\|EP=P3\| -- }} <!-- en: subset of -->
	{{HueRoster\|P=~~{{Ontology:~~P42}}\| {{Ontology:Q3666}} }} <!-- en: QID references -->		{{HueRoster\|EP=P4\| assumption used in storytelling }} <!-- en: instance of -->
	{{HueRoster\|P=~~{{Ontology:P56}}~~\| Free Will }} <!-- en: color swatch references -->		{{HueRoster\|EP=P5\| -- }} <!-- en: superset of -->
	{{HueRoster\|P=~~subset of~~\| -- }} <!-- en: subset of -->		{{HueRoster\|EP=P14\| -- }}
	{{HueRoster\|P=~~instance of~~\| assumption used in storytelling }} <!-- en: instance of -->
	{{HueRoster\|P=~~superset of~~\| -- }} <!-- en: superset of -->
	{{HueRoster\|P=~~appears in work~~\| -- }}
	{{HueRoster\|P=relevant quote\| -- }}		{{HueRoster\|P=relevant quote\| -- }}
	{{HueRoster\|P=[[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand\|prototype]] notes\| [RD is] so sick of this phrase and its use in analyzing both fiction and reality. there are so many wrong assumptions in it that are difficult to dig up at first, but whenever anyone uses this concept it always totally distorts their view of how reality really works. you get so many crazy propositions out of this like that it's absolutely not allowed to investigate how reality works without obeying metaphysics, etc. }}		{{HueRoster\|P=[[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand\|prototype]] notes\| [RD is] so sick of this phrase and its use in analyzing both fiction and reality. there are so many wrong assumptions in it that are difficult to dig up at first, but whenever anyone uses this concept it always totally distorts their view of how reality really works. you get so many crazy propositions out of this like that it's absolutely not allowed to investigate how reality works without obeying metaphysics, etc. }}
	</dl>		</dl>

	=== ~~Components~~ ===		=== Component claims ===

	<dl class="wikitable hue">		<dl class="wikitable hue">
	{{HueRoster\|P=model combines claims\| -- }}		{{HueRoster\|P=model combines claims\| When the subject simply is, it compels people to listen }}
			{{HueRoster\|P=model combines claims\| ?? }}
	</dl>		</dl>

	== Wavebuilder combinations ==		== Wavebuilder combinations ==

	<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild">		<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild three">
	{{WaveBuild\| ?? \| ~~[S]~~ science Tories }} <!-- en: ~~WITH~~ ?? ~~PRODUCES~~ ?? -->		{{WaveBuild\| {{E:Q36,67}} \| prejudice in science \| science Tories }} <!-- en: Along With, Produces ?? ?? -->
	{{WaveBuild\| ?? \| {{Ontology:Q3777}} }} <!-- en: ~~WITH~~ ?? ~~PRODUCES~~ democulture proposition -->		{{WaveBuild\| {{E:Q36,67}} \| political alignment \| {{Ontology:Q3777}} }} <!-- en: Along With, Produces ?? democulture proposition -->
			</dl>

			=== Wavebuilder characterizations ===

			<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild three">
			{{WaveBuild\| Shenlong effect \| {{E:IBE}} \| {{E:Q36,67}} }} <!-- en: From Shenlong effect "I believe that everybody" statement -->
	</dl>		</dl>

	== ~~Analysis~~ / usage notes ==		== Background / usage notes ==

	Ubiquitous throughout what most people term "philosophy" is the vague statement, repeated over and over everywhere, that actions can for some reason be understood in terms of "ends" and "means". This concept is one big heap of nonsense. Try to bring this idea into reality and actually apply it to any real individual, and you will quickly run into the [[Ontology:Q776\|Vegeta effect]], or worse, end up watching two factions of people argue with each other back and forth from either direction about which group is on "the right side of history" and which one is the most evil group of people ever purely for not supporting the other group of people's efforts no matter what means are used to achieve them. In real-world situations, the notions of "the ends" and "the means" simply do not apply. Why?		Ubiquitous throughout what most people term "philosophy" is the vague statement, repeated over and over everywhere, that actions can for some reason be understood in terms of "ends" and "means". This concept is one big heap of nonsense. Try to bring this idea into reality and actually apply it to any real individual, and you will quickly run into the [[Ontology:Q776\|Vegeta effect]], or worse, end up watching two factions of people argue with each other back and forth from either direction about which group is on "the right side of history" and which one is the most evil group of people ever purely for not supporting the other group of people's efforts no matter what means are used to achieve them. In real-world situations, the notions of "the ends" and "the means" simply do not apply. Why?
Line 44:		Line 45:
	It becomes easier to analyze why this concept is distinctly fictional rather than real if we rephrase the statement. What are ends? Ends are goals. What does it entail to justify a set of means? It implicitly entails justifying the set of ends or goals which the means are used to achieve. What is wrong with trying to justify a set of goals? Somebody else might have a problem with those goals. Why would people have a problem with each other's goals? Because they have conflicting goals. Why do people have conflicting goals? Because they assign different meanings to themselves and all the other people around them versus the meanings of those same people that some other person would assign. Why do people at different vantage points all label the same people with different significances? Because people believe that individual will directly shapes a person's relationship with the world and the future. But, given that individuals are individual, there is no reason not to assume that individuals can believe or want absolutely anything. If individuals all want potentially different things, and they all get to interpret their own life and their impact on the entire rest of the world through what they individually want and interpret parts of the world to be, then to say that any particular individual will ever be able to understand that their interpretation of the world or their intended goal is "unjustifiable" according to someone else is very likely to turn out to be a false assumption. "[[Ontology:Q42\|I have the ability to make my own meaning]]," will be the summary of what anybody actually confronted under the accusation of justifying unjustifiable ends will say. And then the entire discussion will shift into an argument over whether you have any right to limit another person's inherent personal granted-from-birth Freedom, whether any particular person's Free Will at any given moment inevitably counts as a form of countable Culture and demographic identity, and whether you are in fact <i>a bigot</i> for not allowing people to believe whatever they want and do whatever they believe.		It becomes easier to analyze why this concept is distinctly fictional rather than real if we rephrase the statement. What are ends? Ends are goals. What does it entail to justify a set of means? It implicitly entails justifying the set of ends or goals which the means are used to achieve. What is wrong with trying to justify a set of goals? Somebody else might have a problem with those goals. Why would people have a problem with each other's goals? Because they have conflicting goals. Why do people have conflicting goals? Because they assign different meanings to themselves and all the other people around them versus the meanings of those same people that some other person would assign. Why do people at different vantage points all label the same people with different significances? Because people believe that individual will directly shapes a person's relationship with the world and the future. But, given that individuals are individual, there is no reason not to assume that individuals can believe or want absolutely anything. If individuals all want potentially different things, and they all get to interpret their own life and their impact on the entire rest of the world through what they individually want and interpret parts of the world to be, then to say that any particular individual will ever be able to understand that their interpretation of the world or their intended goal is "unjustifiable" according to someone else is very likely to turn out to be a false assumption. "[[Ontology:Q42\|I have the ability to make my own meaning]]," will be the summary of what anybody actually confronted under the accusation of justifying unjustifiable ends will say. And then the entire discussion will shift into an argument over whether you have any right to limit another person's inherent personal granted-from-birth Freedom, whether any particular person's Free Will at any given moment inevitably counts as a form of countable Culture and demographic identity, and whether you are in fact <i>a bigot</i> for not allowing people to believe whatever they want and do whatever they believe.

	Well this is a complete and utter mess, isn't it? Perhaps it would have been worth [[~~redlink -~~ hyper-philosophy question\|asking yourself]] if the ends of persuading people not to believe in detestable ends [[~~Ontology~~:~~Q3667~~#top\|were best pursued by these particular means]].		Well this is a complete and utter mess, isn't it? Perhaps it would have been worth [[E:hyper-philosophy question\|asking yourself]] if the ends of persuading people not to believe in detestable ends [[E:Q36,67#top\|were best pursued by these particular means]].

	[unfinished]		[unfinished]

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page Ontology:Q3667 to Ontology:Q36,67: Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title

2025-08-14T21:33:40Z

Reversedragon moved page Ontology:Q3667 to Ontology:Q36,67: Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title

← Older revision	Revision as of 21:33, 14 August 2025
(No difference)

Reversedragon: combination: science Tories

2025-06-13T05:51:53Z

combination: science Tories

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:51, 13 June 2025
Line 34:		Line 34:

	<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild">		<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild">
	{{~~WaveBuildNone~~\| -- \| -- }} <!-- en: WITH ?? PRODUCES ?? -->		{{WaveBuild\| ?? \| [S] science Tories }} <!-- en: WITH ?? PRODUCES ?? -->
			{{WaveBuild\| ?? \| {{Ontology:Q3777}} }} <!-- en: WITH ?? PRODUCES democulture proposition -->
	</dl>		</dl>

	== Analysis / usage notes ==		== Analysis / usage notes ==

	Ubiquitous throughout what most people term "philosophy" is the vague statement, repeated over and over everywhere, that actions can for some reason be understood in terms of "ends" and "means". This concept is one big heap of nonsense. Try to bring this idea into reality and actually apply it to any real individual, and you will quickly run into the [[~~redlink~~\|Vegeta effect]], or worse, end up watching two factions of people argue with each other about which group is on "the right side of history" and which one is the most evil group of people ever purely for not supporting the other group of people's efforts no matter what means are used to achieve them. In real-world situations, the notions of "the ends" and "the means" simply do not apply. Why?		Ubiquitous throughout what most people term "philosophy" is the vague statement, repeated over and over everywhere, that actions can for some reason be understood in terms of "ends" and "means". This concept is one big heap of nonsense. Try to bring this idea into reality and actually apply it to any real individual, and you will quickly run into the [[Ontology:Q776\|Vegeta effect]], or worse, end up watching two factions of people argue with each other back and forth from either direction about which group is on "the right side of history" and which one is the most evil group of people ever purely for not supporting the other group of people's efforts no matter what means are used to achieve them. In real-world situations, the notions of "the ends" and "the means" simply do not apply. Why?

	It becomes easier to analyze why this concept is distinctly fictional rather than real if we rephrase the statement. What are ends? Ends are goals. What does it entail to justify a set of means? It implicitly entails justifying the set of ends or goals which the means are used to achieve. What is wrong with trying to justify a set of goals? Somebody else might have a problem with those goals. Why would people have a problem with each other's goals? Because they have conflicting goals. Why do people have conflicting goals? Because they assign different meanings to themselves and all the other people around them versus the meanings of those same people that some other person would assign. Why do people at different vantage points all label the same people with different significances? Because people believe that individual will directly shapes a person's relationship with the world and the future. But, given that individuals are individual, there is no reason not to assume that individuals can believe or want absolutely anything. If individuals all want potentially different things, and they all get to interpret their own life and their impact on the entire rest of the world through what they individually want and interpret parts of the world to be, then to say that any particular individual will ever be able to understand that their interpretation of the world or their intended goal is "unjustifiable" according to someone else is very likely to turn out to be a false assumption. "[[Ontology:Q42\|I have the ability to make my own meaning]]," will be the summary of what anybody actually confronted under the accusation of justifying unjustifiable ends will say. And then the entire discussion will shift into an argument over whether you have any right to limit another person's inherent personal granted-from-birth Freedom, whether any particular person's Free Will at any given moment inevitably counts as a form of countable Culture and demographic identity, and whether you are in fact <i>a bigot</i> for not allowing people to believe whatever they want and do whatever they believe.		It becomes easier to analyze why this concept is distinctly fictional rather than real if we rephrase the statement. What are ends? Ends are goals. What does it entail to justify a set of means? It implicitly entails justifying the set of ends or goals which the means are used to achieve. What is wrong with trying to justify a set of goals? Somebody else might have a problem with those goals. Why would people have a problem with each other's goals? Because they have conflicting goals. Why do people have conflicting goals? Because they assign different meanings to themselves and all the other people around them versus the meanings of those same people that some other person would assign. Why do people at different vantage points all label the same people with different significances? Because people believe that individual will directly shapes a person's relationship with the world and the future. But, given that individuals are individual, there is no reason not to assume that individuals can believe or want absolutely anything. If individuals all want potentially different things, and they all get to interpret their own life and their impact on the entire rest of the world through what they individually want and interpret parts of the world to be, then to say that any particular individual will ever be able to understand that their interpretation of the world or their intended goal is "unjustifiable" according to someone else is very likely to turn out to be a false assumption. "[[Ontology:Q42\|I have the ability to make my own meaning]]," will be the summary of what anybody actually confronted under the accusation of justifying unjustifiable ends will say. And then the entire discussion will shift into an argument over whether you have any right to limit another person's inherent personal granted-from-birth Freedom, whether any particular person's Free Will at any given moment inevitably counts as a form of countable Culture and demographic identity, and whether you are in fact <i>a bigot</i> for not allowing people to believe whatever they want and do whatever they believe.
Line 48:		Line 49:


	[[Category:~~Unsorted Existentialist-Structuralist claims~~ ontology]] [[Category:Text pages containing experiments]]		[[Category:Existential materialism ontology]] [[Category:Text pages containing experiments]]

Reversedragon: as rhetorical question

2025-05-29T04:24:39Z

as rhetorical question

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:24, 29 May 2025
Line 14:		Line 14:
	{{HueClaim\|P=alias (en)\| Nothing should be done without a reason everybody on earth considers wonderful }}		{{HueClaim\|P=alias (en)\| Nothing should be done without a reason everybody on earth considers wonderful }}
	{{HueClaim\|P=alias (en)\| The ends cannot justify the means \| The reason for doing something can never justify the method used to do it \| "they had such good reasons for doing what they did that the ends justify the means" }}		{{HueClaim\|P=alias (en)\| The ends cannot justify the means \| The reason for doing something can never justify the method used to do it \| "they had such good reasons for doing what they did that the ends justify the means" }}
			{{HueClaim\|P=alias (en)\| Is some particular set of goals enough to justify a particular plan to achieve it? (rhetorical question) }}
	{{HueRoster\|P={{Ontology:P42}}\| {{Ontology:Q3666}} }} <!-- en: QID references -->		{{HueRoster\|P={{Ontology:P42}}\| {{Ontology:Q3666}} }} <!-- en: QID references -->
	{{HueRoster\|P={{Ontology:P56}}\| Free Will }} <!-- en: color swatch references -->		{{HueRoster\|P={{Ontology:P56}}\| Free Will }} <!-- en: color swatch references -->
	{{HueRoster\|P=subset of\| -- }} <!-- en: subset of -->		{{HueRoster\|P=subset of\| -- }} <!-- en: subset of -->
	{{HueRoster\|P=instance of\| -- }} <!-- en: instance of -->		{{HueRoster\|P=instance of\| assumption used in storytelling }} <!-- en: instance of -->
	{{HueRoster\|P=superset of\| -- }} <!-- en: superset of -->		{{HueRoster\|P=superset of\| -- }} <!-- en: superset of -->
	{{HueRoster\|P=appears in work\| -- }}		{{HueRoster\|P=appears in work\| -- }}
Line 40:		Line 41:
	Ubiquitous throughout what most people term "philosophy" is the vague statement, repeated over and over everywhere, that actions can for some reason be understood in terms of "ends" and "means". This concept is one big heap of nonsense. Try to bring this idea into reality and actually apply it to any real individual, and you will quickly run into the [[redlink\|Vegeta effect]], or worse, end up watching two factions of people argue with each other about which group is on "the right side of history" and which one is the most evil group of people ever purely for not supporting the other group of people's efforts no matter what means are used to achieve them. In real-world situations, the notions of "the ends" and "the means" simply do not apply. Why?		Ubiquitous throughout what most people term "philosophy" is the vague statement, repeated over and over everywhere, that actions can for some reason be understood in terms of "ends" and "means". This concept is one big heap of nonsense. Try to bring this idea into reality and actually apply it to any real individual, and you will quickly run into the [[redlink\|Vegeta effect]], or worse, end up watching two factions of people argue with each other about which group is on "the right side of history" and which one is the most evil group of people ever purely for not supporting the other group of people's efforts no matter what means are used to achieve them. In real-world situations, the notions of "the ends" and "the means" simply do not apply. Why?

	It becomes easier to analyze why this concept is distinctly fictional rather than real if we rephrase the statement. What are ends? Ends are goals. What does it entail to justify a set of means? It implicitly entails justifying the set of ends or goals which the means are used to achieve. What is wrong with trying to justify a set of goals? Somebody else might have a problem with those goals. Why would people have a problem with each other's goals? Because they have conflicting goals. Why do people have conflicting goals? Because they assign different meanings to themselves and all the other people around them versus the meanings of those same people that some other person would assign. Why do people at different vantage points all label the same people with different significances? Because people believe that individual will directly shapes a person's relationship with the world and the future. But, given that individuals are individual, there is no reason not to assume that individuals can believe or want absolutely anything. If individuals all want potentially different things, and they all get to interpret their own life and their impact on the entire rest of the world through what they individually want and interpret parts of the world to be, then to say that any particular individual will ever be able to understand that their interpretation of the world or their intended goal is "unjustifiable" according to someone else is very likely to turn out to be a false assumption. "[[Ontology:Q42\|I have the ability to make my own meaning]]," will be the summary of what anybody actually confronted under the accusation of justifying unjustifiable ends will say.		It becomes easier to analyze why this concept is distinctly fictional rather than real if we rephrase the statement. What are ends? Ends are goals. What does it entail to justify a set of means? It implicitly entails justifying the set of ends or goals which the means are used to achieve. What is wrong with trying to justify a set of goals? Somebody else might have a problem with those goals. Why would people have a problem with each other's goals? Because they have conflicting goals. Why do people have conflicting goals? Because they assign different meanings to themselves and all the other people around them versus the meanings of those same people that some other person would assign. Why do people at different vantage points all label the same people with different significances? Because people believe that individual will directly shapes a person's relationship with the world and the future. But, given that individuals are individual, there is no reason not to assume that individuals can believe or want absolutely anything. If individuals all want potentially different things, and they all get to interpret their own life and their impact on the entire rest of the world through what they individually want and interpret parts of the world to be, then to say that any particular individual will ever be able to understand that their interpretation of the world or their intended goal is "unjustifiable" according to someone else is very likely to turn out to be a false assumption. "[[Ontology:Q42\|I have the ability to make my own meaning]]," will be the summary of what anybody actually confronted under the accusation of justifying unjustifiable ends will say. And then the entire discussion will shift into an argument over whether you have any right to limit another person's inherent personal granted-from-birth Freedom, whether any particular person's Free Will at any given moment inevitably counts as a form of countable Culture and demographic identity, and whether you are in fact <i>a bigot</i> for not allowing people to believe whatever they want and do whatever they believe.

			Well this is a complete and utter mess, isn't it? Perhaps it would have been worth [[redlink - hyper-philosophy question\|asking yourself]] if the ends of persuading people not to believe in detestable ends [[Ontology:Q3667#top\|were best pursued by these particular means]].

	[unfinished]		[unfinished]


	[[Category:Unsorted Existentialist-Structuralist claims ontology]] [[Category:Text pages containing experiments]]		[[Category:Unsorted Existentialist-Structuralist claims ontology]] [[Category:Text pages containing experiments]]

Reversedragon: Analysis / usage notes

2025-05-27T12:25:11Z

Analysis / usage notes

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:25, 27 May 2025
Line 36:		Line 36:
	</dl>		</dl>

			== Analysis / usage notes ==

			Ubiquitous throughout what most people term "philosophy" is the vague statement, repeated over and over everywhere, that actions can for some reason be understood in terms of "ends" and "means". This concept is one big heap of nonsense. Try to bring this idea into reality and actually apply it to any real individual, and you will quickly run into the [[redlink\|Vegeta effect]], or worse, end up watching two factions of people argue with each other about which group is on "the right side of history" and which one is the most evil group of people ever purely for not supporting the other group of people's efforts no matter what means are used to achieve them. In real-world situations, the notions of "the ends" and "the means" simply do not apply. Why?

			It becomes easier to analyze why this concept is distinctly fictional rather than real if we rephrase the statement. What are ends? Ends are goals. What does it entail to justify a set of means? It implicitly entails justifying the set of ends or goals which the means are used to achieve. What is wrong with trying to justify a set of goals? Somebody else might have a problem with those goals. Why would people have a problem with each other's goals? Because they have conflicting goals. Why do people have conflicting goals? Because they assign different meanings to themselves and all the other people around them versus the meanings of those same people that some other person would assign. Why do people at different vantage points all label the same people with different significances? Because people believe that individual will directly shapes a person's relationship with the world and the future. But, given that individuals are individual, there is no reason not to assume that individuals can believe or want absolutely anything. If individuals all want potentially different things, and they all get to interpret their own life and their impact on the entire rest of the world through what they individually want and interpret parts of the world to be, then to say that any particular individual will ever be able to understand that their interpretation of the world or their intended goal is "unjustifiable" according to someone else is very likely to turn out to be a false assumption. "[[Ontology:Q42\|I have the ability to make my own meaning]]," will be the summary of what anybody actually confronted under the accusation of justifying unjustifiable ends will say.

			[unfinished]

	[[Category:Unsorted Existentialist-Structuralist claims ontology]] [[Category:Text pages containing experiments]]		[[Category:Unsorted Existentialist-Structuralist claims ontology]] [[Category:Text pages containing experiments]]

Reversedragon: experiment: page title thought

2025-05-27T03:57:59Z

experiment: page title thought

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:57, 27 May 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{HueCSS}}{{BopCSS}}~~<!--~~		{{HueCSS}}<!-- {{BopCSS}}
	--><ol class="hue clean compound"><li>		--><ol class="hue clean compound"><li>
	<onlyinclude><dfn class="field_exstruct manual" data-dimension="S2" data-qid="~~3666~~" data-field="" data-series="" data-work="" data-chapter="" data-tale="" data-object="" data-note="" data-lexeme="">{{IS2}}{{#if: {{{1\|}}} \| [[Ontology:{{{1}}}\|{{{1}}}]] \| [[Ontology:Q3667\|Nothing should be done unless everybody considers it wonderful]] }}{{WaveScore\|sum=1\|quilt=1\|ply=1}}</dfn></onlyinclude> __NOTOC__		<onlyinclude><dfn class="field_exstruct manual" data-dimension="S2" data-qid="3667" data-field="" data-series="" data-work="" data-chapter="" data-tale="" data-object="" data-note="" data-lexeme="">{{IS2}}{{#if: {{{1\|}}} \| [[Ontology:{{{1}}}\|{{{1}}}]] \| [[Ontology:Q3667\|Nothing should be done unless everybody considers it wonderful]] }}{{WaveScore\|sum=1\|quilt=1\|ply=1}}</dfn></onlyinclude> __NOTOC__
	</li></ol><!-- change summary template: copy or update fake Item from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN\|~~Q3666~~]] -->		</li></ol><!-- change summary template: copy or update fake Item from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN\|Q3667]] -->

	== Characteristics in draft ==		== Characteristics in draft ==
Line 9:		Line 9:

	<dl class="wikitable hue">		<dl class="wikitable hue">
			{{HueClaim\|P=plaintext page title (en)\| <code>[S2] Nothing should be done unless everybody considers it wonderful / The ends, the means - ES / Q3667 - Litho-Graph-ica</code> }}
	{{HueClaim\|P=item type\| {{Template:S2}} }}		{{HueClaim\|P=item type\| {{Template:S2}} }}
	{{HueRoster\|P=label (en)\| {{Ontology:Q3667}} }}		{{HueRoster\|P=label (en)\| {{Ontology:Q3667}} }}
Line 36:		Line 37:


	[[Category:Unsorted Existentialist-Structuralist claims ontology]]		[[Category:Unsorted Existentialist-Structuralist claims ontology]] [[Category:Text pages containing experiments]]

Reversedragon: copy or update fake Item from Q3666

2025-05-27T03:20:48Z

copy or update fake Item from Q3666

New page

{{HueCSS}}{{BopCSS}}<ol class="hue clean compound"><li>
<onlyinclude><dfn class="field_exstruct manual" data-dimension="S2" data-qid="3666" data-field="" data-series="" data-work="" data-chapter="" data-tale="" data-object="" data-note="" data-lexeme="">{{IS2}}{{#if: {{{1|}}} | [[Ontology:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] | [[Ontology:Q3667|Nothing should be done unless everybody considers it wonderful]] }}{{WaveScore|sum=1|quilt=1|ply=1}}</dfn></onlyinclude> __NOTOC__
</li></ol>

== Characteristics in draft ==

=== Properties ===

<dl class="wikitable hue">
{{HueClaim|P=item type| {{Template:S2}} }}
{{HueRoster|P=label (en)| {{Ontology:Q3667}} }}
{{HueClaim|P=alias (en)| Nothing should be done without a reason everybody on earth considers wonderful }}
{{HueClaim|P=alias (en)| The ends cannot justify the means | The reason for doing something can never justify the method used to do it | "they had such good reasons for doing what they did that the ends justify the means" }}
{{HueRoster|P={{Ontology:P42}}| {{Ontology:Q3666}} }} 
{{HueRoster|P={{Ontology:P56}}| Free Will }} 
{{HueRoster|P=subset of| -- }} 
{{HueRoster|P=instance of| -- }} 
{{HueRoster|P=superset of| -- }} 
{{HueRoster|P=appears in work| -- }}
{{HueRoster|P=relevant quote| -- }}
{{HueRoster|P=[[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand|prototype]] notes| [RD is] so sick of this phrase and its use in analyzing both fiction and reality. there are so many wrong assumptions in it that are difficult to dig up at first, but whenever anyone uses this concept it always totally distorts their view of how reality really works. you get so many crazy propositions out of this like that it's absolutely not allowed to investigate how reality works without obeying metaphysics, etc. }}
</dl>

=== Components ===

<dl class="wikitable hue">
{{HueRoster|P=model combines claims| -- }}
</dl>

== Wavebuilder combinations ==

<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild">
{{WaveBuildNone| -- | -- }} 
</dl>

[[Category:Unsorted Existentialist-Structuralist claims ontology]]