Editing Annotation:Thoughts about Space, Time, and the Concept of Identity/Bogl6snbzr
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
This page supports semantic in-text annotations (e.g. "[[Is specified as::World Heritage Site]]") to build structured and queryable content provided by Semantic MediaWiki. For a comprehensive description on how to use annotations or the #ask parser function, please have a look at the getting started, in-text annotation, or inline queries help pages.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|field_radiobutton=pro | |field_radiobutton=pro | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Thema | + | {{Thema}} |
| − | |||
| − | }} | ||
{{TextAnnotation | {{TextAnnotation | ||
|AnnotationOf=Thoughts_about_Space,_Time,_and_the_Concept_of_Identity | |AnnotationOf=Thoughts_about_Space,_Time,_and_the_Concept_of_Identity | ||
|AnnotationComment=Beziehungen zwischen Gegenständen werden nicht wahrgenommen, sondern sind fiktiv | |AnnotationComment=Beziehungen zwischen Gegenständen werden nicht wahrgenommen, sondern sind fiktiv | ||
| − | |LastModificationDate=2019-03-11T19: | + | |LastModificationDate=2019-03-11T19:41:45.044Z |
|LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler | |LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler | ||
| − | |AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Bogl6snbzr","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ13Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ14Ӻ","endOffset":898°Ӻ,"quote":"The insight which, to me, seems so important is somewhat obscured by the inherent ambiguity of the word “same”. This has at times confused the clearest thinkers, because it is not the kind of ambiguity that is usually and easily resolved by the context. There are, however, contexts in which it does come out clearly. Take, for example, the two statements: “This is the same girl I saw yesterday” and “She bought the same dress as her sister.” The girl is one and the same individual, seen twice; the dresses are two, considered equivalent in every respect that one chose to take into account when comparing them.\nBentham is not concerned with the difference between individual identity and equivalence. He opposes identity to diversity. Yet, in this passage, he comes very close to making two further distinctions. He begins by saying that the mind cannot focus on more than one item at one moment, but makes up for this by relating items registered at different moments. Relations, therefore, are not “perceived” but fictitious – and he uses that word in the same sense as Vico’s factum (made). No sooner has he said this, he seems to contradict it by speaking of the mind “having perception of one object” and “at the same time” obtaining perception of another object. The operative word, here, is “obtaining”. It is intended actively, as procuring or producing, and it springs from what is stated at the beginning of the sentence where Bentham introduces all this as an example of how relations are produced.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321069440196109334642":^°°,^"jQuery321069440196109334642":^°°,^"jQuery321069440196109334642":^°°,^"jQuery321069440196109334642":^°°,^"jQuery321069440196109334642":^°°Ӻ,"text":"Beziehungen zwischen Gegenständen werden nicht wahrgenommen, sondern sind fiktiv","category":"Argument","data_creacio":1552329704586° | + | |AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Bogl6snbzr","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ13Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ14Ӻ","endOffset":898°Ӻ,"quote":"The insight which, to me, seems so important is somewhat obscured by the inherent ambiguity of the word “same”. This has at times confused the clearest thinkers, because it is not the kind of ambiguity that is usually and easily resolved by the context. There are, however, contexts in which it does come out clearly. Take, for example, the two statements: “This is the same girl I saw yesterday” and “She bought the same dress as her sister.” The girl is one and the same individual, seen twice; the dresses are two, considered equivalent in every respect that one chose to take into account when comparing them.\nBentham is not concerned with the difference between individual identity and equivalence. He opposes identity to diversity. Yet, in this passage, he comes very close to making two further distinctions. He begins by saying that the mind cannot focus on more than one item at one moment, but makes up for this by relating items registered at different moments. Relations, therefore, are not “perceived” but fictitious – and he uses that word in the same sense as Vico’s factum (made). No sooner has he said this, he seems to contradict it by speaking of the mind “having perception of one object” and “at the same time” obtaining perception of another object. The operative word, here, is “obtaining”. It is intended actively, as procuring or producing, and it springs from what is stated at the beginning of the sentence where Bentham introduces all this as an example of how relations are produced.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321069440196109334642":^°°,^"jQuery321069440196109334642":^°°,^"jQuery321069440196109334642":^°°,^"jQuery321069440196109334642":^°°,^"jQuery321069440196109334642":^°°Ӻ,"text":"Beziehungen zwischen Gegenständen werden nicht wahrgenommen, sondern sind fiktiv","order":"Upw1wc9zie","category":"Argument","data_creacio":1552329704586° |
}} | }} | ||
