84
edits
Category talk:Entelechy: Difference between revisions
→Well...
KrytenKoro (talk | contribs) |
Neo Bahamut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 314: | Line 314: | ||
:My point is, with the word we are currently using, there is seriously no point arguing it. It means what it means, and it would take a major event to make it stop meaning that. | :My point is, with the word we are currently using, there is seriously no point arguing it. It means what it means, and it would take a major event to make it stop meaning that. | ||
:(Also, each of the definitions given there are simply different approaches to the necessary concept: something that is complete).{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 05:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC) | :(Also, each of the definitions given there are simply different approaches to the necessary concept: something that is complete).{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 05:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
::This is not the route I wanted to go down, so this is the last note I'll make on the subject: In some senses, the word can be used as you are using. Still, other definitions, such as "the realization of potential" & "the supposed vital principle that guides he functioning of an organism or system" have absolutely no relation to the idea you're trying to communicate. It's important to realize, this is a philosophy term, & philosophers often spend pages upon pages elaborating on what they mean. Saying, "It can't be argued" just would not hold up under serious scrutiny.[[User:Neo Bahamut|Neo Bahamut]] 15:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC) | |||