Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q642: Difference between revisions
copy markup from Q618-DigitalCircus |
pinning False to anecdotes ; created today |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=pinning False to anecdotes|User=RD|E=Q642|Contents=y}} | {{NextNineThousand|PPPA=pinning False to anecdotes|User=RD|E=Q642|Contents=y}} | ||
== Main entry == | == Main entry == | ||
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean | {{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean field_ML"> | ||
{{li|start=y|I=S1/HAS|Q=642|Q2=642}}pinning False to anecdotes / pinning True to specific incident / pinning True to oddly-specific outcome / pegging truth values to oddly specific outcomes -><br/> | |||
I have problems with critical-theory doing this because of how specific it gets without realizing how specific it got, but at the same time, it's an interesting concept if you look at it in its totality and think about all the possible ways you could do it. I independently invented it on my own with early Trotskyism before I even had any idea that critical-theory was doing it. then, after puppetting the concept of Liberal-republicanism ironically I finally realized that pointing to [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-CourtCase|the need to resolve court cases]], or pointing to the need to get rid of "prejudice" was the same thing. each example has weaknesses in that other [[E:All political philosophies are ideologies|sociophilosophies]] won't think it's important, but when you take a reasonably diverse array of examples together you see a clearer picture start to form of what all the examples are actually saying. | |||
</li></ol> | |||
== Scenarios == | |||
<ol class="hue clean field_ML field_horror"> | |||
{{li|start=y|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|Q2=618}}Desired (truth value) / desirable outcome (truth value) | |||
{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618|Q2=618}}Undesired (truth value) / undesirable outcome (truth value) | |||
{{li|I=S2/MX/LR|tradition=MX onto LR onto IV, MX/IV/LR|Q=29,84|Q2=2984|h4 = Oppressing early Trotskyism is Undesired }} / In the First World Trotsky is sacred / ([[User:RD/9k/Q29,84|9k/Q29,84]], [[EC:9k/RD/Q41,91|Q41,91]]) -> widely repeated by Liberal-republicanism, but also approved by Trotskyists; something of a classic. | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
| Line 10: | Line 20: | ||
== Related == | == Related == | ||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
<ol class="hue clean | <ol class="hue clean field_ML"> | ||
</li></ol> --> | </li></ol> | ||
--> | |||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
Revision as of 09:58, 21 June 2026
Main entry
- pinning False to anecdotes / pinning True to specific incident / pinning True to oddly-specific outcome / pegging truth values to oddly specific outcomes ->
I have problems with critical-theory doing this because of how specific it gets without realizing how specific it got, but at the same time, it's an interesting concept if you look at it in its totality and think about all the possible ways you could do it. I independently invented it on my own with early Trotskyism before I even had any idea that critical-theory was doing it. then, after puppetting the concept of Liberal-republicanism ironically I finally realized that pointing to the need to resolve court cases, or pointing to the need to get rid of "prejudice" was the same thing. each example has weaknesses in that other sociophilosophies won't think it's important, but when you take a reasonably diverse array of examples together you see a clearer picture start to form of what all the examples are actually saying.
Scenarios
- Desired (truth value) / desirable outcome (truth value)
- Undesired (truth value) / undesirable outcome (truth value)
Oppressing early Trotskyism is Undesired
/ In the First World Trotsky is sacred / (9k/Q29,84, Q41,91) -> widely repeated by Liberal-republicanism, but also approved by Trotskyists; something of a classic.
Related
Ideologies or fields
- / non-binary logic
- / critical theory