3 ms·
I'm either not understanding you or disagreeing. You seem to be saying that something should be because it is? Saying that would be rather silly, as in "Electro
by xpe 3y ago
I'm either not understanding you or disagreeing. You seem to be saying that something should be because it is? Saying that would be rather silly, as in "Electrons should repel each other because they repel each other." Not to mention that this claim runs amok of the naturalistic fallacy. So what are you driving at?
- fastball 3y agoWell first I meant "not rivalrous", whoops typo. But from there my point was that, in order to ask what "should be", you must ask what can be. I don't think there is a way for ideas to be non-rivalrous, period. So sure, saying ideas are not rivalrous is descriptive, but there isn't really another option.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]