Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, it is more like "unsuitable", which can be a synonym for "inappropriate", but the latter can be read as something that is wrong rather than something that just doesn't fit.
Harry's pretty careful with his word choices. He uses this forum, in part, to practice English and will gladly stand corrected in order to learn. I don't see him calling the analogies "inept" because that really doesn't make sense.
His illustration was of a triangle and square having the same sides. If you want to defend that as describing it as simply "unsuitable" (when and where would that analogy be suitable?) and talk about languages, that's fine. I always find it funny when someone tries to point out someone else's mistakes by making a mistake, so I asked for clarification first. If we want to pretend it was all some grammatical act of perfection it's all good and doesn't hurt anybody, so, sounds good to me.
His illustration was of a triangle and square having the same sides. If you want to defend that as describing it as simply "unsuitable" (when and where would that analogy be suitable?) and talk about languages, that's fine. I always find it funny when someone tries to point out someone else's mistakes by making a mistake, so I asked for clarification first. If we want to pretend it was all some grammatical act of perfection it's all good and doesn't hurt anybody, so, sounds good to me.
I glazed over the whole triangles and shapes and ice cream analogies bit. That's those two going at each other as usual. I don't care. Was talking about the word "inapt", and that is all.
I glazed over the whole triangles and shapes and ice cream analogies bit. That's those two going at each other as usual. I don't care. Was talking about the word "inapt", and that is all.
As was I, and he used it incorrectly *while* trying to correct someone else. And it was ironic. And here we are.
My point is: sometimes in one's rush to try to discredit an entire idea by moving it sideways into a "you're stupid"-style snark, one puts one's foot into his own mouth.
All of this could have been avoided by posters not resorting to ad hominem because they are frustrated. So I attempted irony...and a point.
There is a topic here, or was, but it has been swallowed by every attempted tactic in the book. It's too bad, really.
As was I, and he used it incorrectly *while* trying to correct someone else. And it was ironic. And here we are. My point is: sometimes in one's rush to try to discredit an entire idea by moving it sideways into a "you're stupid"-style snark, one puts one's foot into his own mouth. All of this could have been avoided by posters not resorting to ad hominem because they are frustrated. So I attempted irony...and a point.There is a topic here, or was, but it has been swallowed by every attempted tactic in the book. It's too bad, really.
your point is well taken Jer. the "inapt" made me smile also for obvious reasons.
a quote from the bible is in order here: "They laid a snare and dug a pit for me but they themselves fell into it." "He who digs a pit will fall into it."
Proverbs 57:7 and 26:27
your point is well taken Jer. the "inapt" made me smile also for obvious reasons.
a quote from the bible is in order here: "They laid a snare and dug a pit for me but they themselves fell into it." "He who digs a pit will fall into it."
Proverbs 57:7 and 26:27
His illustration was of a triangle and square having the same sides. If you want to defend that as describing it as simply "unsuitable" (when and where would that analogy be suitable?) and talk about languages, that's fine. I always find it funny when someone tries to point out someone else's mistakes by making a mistake, so I asked for clarification first. If we want to pretend it was all some grammatical act of perfection it's all good and doesn't hurt anybody, so, sounds good to me.
You don't seem to be addressing what I actually said, which I always find a perplexing tactic.
To give a final clarification, his illustration had nothing, zip, zero, to do with what I said.
He used the term "inapt", or unsuitable, to describe another's (Tzaphkiel's, I think) analogy.
You said, "don't you mean 'inept'?"
I responded, "no, he meant inapt, meaning inappropriate or unsuitable".
I made no comment on anyone's analogy, Harry's, Tzap's, or otherwise. I'm not interested enough in getting involved in the conversation to have done so.
TL;DR "Inapt" is a word.
the only person who knows what he meant is the person who wrote the post.
others may guess or go by what their impression is, or what their own opinion is.
but we can't speak for what another person meant. only they can.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-20-2023 at 06:59 AM..
Inept in forming an analogy. That is a deeply contested aspect of language that is common in many of the threads dealing with R&S in particular. Spiritual language relies on analogies and metaphors and they are often questioned by materialists. As in, the poster being inept in forming them, that the analogies don't work.
Not at al surprised that "inept" was indeed meant. It could just be a typo, no big deal. We will know soon enough.
i agree. many of the grievances, struggles, complaints aired by those who object to sacred texts, stem from the difficulty which literalists and materialists have with understanding stacked meaning, metaphor, paradox, and analogy.
for instance if divinity, the sacred, or even the understanding of a passage, eludes them, they claim it is an illusion. And thus they allude to the text or those discussing the meaning of the text, as inept. or inapt.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-20-2023 at 07:19 AM..
i agree. many of the grievances, struggles, complaints aired by those who object to sacred texts, stem from the difficulty which literalists and materialists have with understanding stacked meaning, metaphor, paradox, and analogy.
I am not sure it is entirely due to difficulty to understand. It is fear that the logic actually works, and that shakes their own beliefs. So it is best to thrown everything at the analogy. Whatever works to keep one happy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So I attempted irony...and a point.
