|
@waltshaub | |||||
|
Their very existence and its meaning. (Seesh, I had to post this 3 times to overcome autocorrect. What do you call that?)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
Walter Shaub
@waltshaub
|
Jul 31 |
|
This isn't an ontological thought exercise. If they've got a nasty infestation of PONCs, you can see why the 1st Amendment traumatizes them. twitter.com/waltshaub/stat…
|
||
|
|
Walter Shaub
@waltshaub
|
Jul 31 |
|
If there's even the slightest chance I used "ontological" correctly, you can join me in imagining a PONC tweeting "I'm asked therefore I am"
|
||
|
Amy Hoy
@amyhoy
|
Jul 31 |
|
go ahead, PONC, make my day
ps i think it's more like semiotics but who cares, you're still the best
|
||
|
|
Walter Shaub
@waltshaub
|
Jul 31 |
|
Semiotics. Ha! These aren't words, they're seditious little beasts, with their tongues hanging out waiting for you to answer them. ALIVE!
|
||
|
Tai Ragan
@TaiRagan
|
Jul 31 |
|
But is what's at stake their name or their nature? The form or quintessence of a PNOC?
|
||
|
|
Tai Ragan
@TaiRagan
|
Jul 31 |
|
From my slim understanding of Heidegger I'd second "ontological" since it implies that existence and meaning are the same. Just curious
|
||
|
|
Amy Hoy
@amyhoy
|
Jul 31 |
|
but wouldn't that require that the word is the Ding an Sich ?
i kant even
đŸ˜‚
|
||
|
|
Tai Ragan
@TaiRagan
|
Jul 31 |
|
Apologies, my grasp of kantinental philosophy never was that strong
|
||
|
|
Amy Hoy
@amyhoy
|
Jul 31 |
|
you win pic.twitter.com/h4Vsnyw0BI
|
||