The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: FounDit
About
User Name: FounDit
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation:
Interests: Psychology, philosophy, thought-provoking discussions
Gender: Male
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Monday, September 19, 2011
Last Visit: Saturday, September 22, 2018 11:07:28 AM
Number of Posts: 9,434
[1.05% of all post / 3.68 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Get help vs take help
Posted: Saturday, September 22, 2018 11:07:20 AM
Romany wrote:

In BE we would tend to say "take him up on" his offer of help.

"I'd like to take him up on his offer of help."
"I'm thinking of taking him up on his offer of help."


We would also say exactly these kinds of things in AmE.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: On the two eyes
Posted: Saturday, September 22, 2018 10:45:57 AM
georgew wrote:
FounDit wrote:
It isn't clear to me what is meant. Perhaps if you link to the source we could be of more help.


This, perhaps.


That does appear to be the source. In that case, it seems to me that the technique involves creating a final photograph by focusing (registering) on the eyes in each picture used. Doing so results in a blend of photos into one composite photo.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: What Exactly Is Common Sense? We All Think We Have It.
Posted: Saturday, September 22, 2018 10:29:44 AM
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
I don't agree fully there - you must agree there are instances of someone deliberately doing something to save the family (or the nation, or Humankind even) which is 100% certain to kill themselves.
That is not doing what is good for self as an individual.
However that is not what I'd consider 'common sense'.
There are, of course, people who will sacrifice themselves for members of their family, and often for other members of the human race (soldiers come to mind who volunteer with the knowledge they may very well die). However, common sense would tell us that it is better that we don't die in defense of others so we can continue to be of help to them. That's all common sense would say.

To me, really, I suppose that 'common sense' comes down to "knowing what is the right thing to do - the thing which will help (or at least not harm) oneself, the family, one's groups, the species, the planet - without having to ruminate and contemplate for more than a very brief time".

A simple problem - I have an egg sitting at the bottom of a pot of boiling water.
Someone with common sense picks up the spoon on the table and takes the egg out (or, failing a spoon, picks up the pot and empties the water out) and eats the egg.
And here, the common sense I describe that would be passed down from previous generations would be to use a spoon (or tongs, anything but a hand...Brick wall ).

Someone without common sense thinks - "now, if I stick my hand in there I'll get scalded . . .
and if I wait for the water to cool down, the egg will be cold too . . . I could turn the heat up to full and evaporate all the water away, but might burn the house down . . . and maybe I could get someone else to stick their hand in the boiling water . . . but that's a bit nasty . . . no what I'll do is . . . no, that doesn't work."

*************
A more complex one:
There is a new source of energy - a personal, watch-sized fission generator. It will make the developer a fortune, but anyone using it will die in thirty years.

Someone with common sense (I think) would publish the research widely (including the dangers) in the hope that someone would find a safe way to get all this energy - possibly this person would invest in a company researching it.
I agree. Someone with common sense would have the understanding from previous generations that if life is to continue, one would not do something to destroy it.

Someone with no common sense would promote the gadget, without mentioning the dangers, and die along with everyone else.
This would be an instance of putting the self above the interests of others - true selfishness, such as that of the politicians I noted, not the kind I described as preserving the self by benefiting others.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: Refer
Posted: Saturday, September 22, 2018 10:12:45 AM
D00M wrote:
Hello respected teachers,

Are both the following correct?
Yes, but there is a very slight difference in the meaning.

They are worth referring to because... .
This one conveys the idea that there is value to you in using them.
They are worth (you) referring to them because...

They are worth being referred to because... .
This one conveys the idea that they have value in themselves and are worth using as a reference.
They are (worthy) of being referenced because...



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: Is 'material' in the text a countable noun?
Posted: Saturday, September 22, 2018 10:03:50 AM
Koh Elaine wrote:
This booklet is an extremely useful material for all people who want to know more about Buddhism.
This booklet is extremely useful material for all people who want to know more about Buddhism.

Is 'material' in the text a countable noun?

Thanks.


No, it isn't. "Material" would be uncoutable. Also, your first sentence is not correct with the word "an". That word should be omitted. However, if you wanted to use it, you would say something like, "This booklet is an extremely useful source (of) material for all people who want to know more about Buddhism".


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: On the two eyes
Posted: Saturday, September 22, 2018 9:58:50 AM
It isn't clear to me what is meant. Perhaps if you link to the source we could be of more help.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: Drawing pin? Nail? Pin?
Posted: Saturday, September 22, 2018 9:53:13 AM
In AE, we call it a "thumbtack". It is a small tack meant to be pressed into place with your thumb.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: 'International Islamic Solidarity Bank' Vs. 'Solidarity International Islamic Bank' (Word order)
Posted: Friday, September 21, 2018 9:45:26 PM
A cooperator wrote:
Hi Everyone.
I'm almost always faced with a problem ordering words in such phrases:
I see some people write:
International Islamic Solidarity Bank

Others write it as:
Tadhamon International Islamic Bank
Where, in the second one 'Tadhamon' is transliterated to the Arabic name 'تضامن'. however, in the first phrase, 'Solidarity' is used in-place of 'Tadhamon', but in another sequence in the phrase.
Since you say you see people writing this different ways, it suggests that this is not the proper name of a bank.

What most strikes me is why the word "solidarity" is included. Is this supposed to refer to solidarity under Islam, or solidarity in banking?

The word seems to be entirely unnecessary in the name of a bank because it isn't clear what solidarity has to do with banking.

Normally, in English, we list the descriptive words first, so the simplest solution is to just call it the International Islamic Bank.

Also, "Al-Amoudi Central Fish Market and Vegetables", I think, should be written in this order:
Al-Amoudi Fish and Vegetables Central Market
In this one, I wonder about the word "Central". Is it used because there are other markets around, and this one is centrally located, or is this the only one and it is located in the center of the town or area?

In either case, I would suggest: Al-Amoudi Central Fish and Vegetable Market.

Also, "Al Burj Hospital Advisory", I think, should be written as 'Al Burj Advisory Hospital'
This one suffers from the same kind of confusion. Is the advisory giving advice to the hospital, or is the hospital giving advice to someone else? It isn't clear.

If the advisory is giving advice to the hospital, then your first one works. But if the hospital is advising someone else, then the second one works (though I've never heard of a hospital giving advice. And what kind of advice would that be? -- save plenty of money before you come here? -- stay healthy and you won't have to come here?...Think ).



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: What Exactly Is Common Sense? We All Think We Have It.
Posted: Friday, September 21, 2018 5:21:14 PM
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
I suppose I took Pasteur's comment about flooding the forum with divagations as a sign that he/she would consider anything "finding flaws in the definition" to be not "wise" and as a divagation.

Like Pasteur, I've seen enough of that sort of thing in the media.

**************

I understand your idea of "selfishness" as a universal constant - and that 'common sense', this "Well, it's obvious. How could anyone see it another way?" idea is doing what's best for self.

It's just that my idea is that some people consider 'self' to be only that one body.
Most consider it to be a little more than that, and include family - so 'selfishness' includes survival for the family.
Right - what helps the family survive also tends to increase our own survival as well. But the word "selfish" usually conveys the idea of thinking of one's own self to the exclusion of others, and that is considered a negative trait, of course. But I think of it in the more philosophical sense of using the self as a starting point in considering how one interacts with the world.

Some seem to naturally think with "If I cooperate with others, and make society excellent for everyone, it will be excellent for me too - so it is being selfish to cooperate and improve the planet for everyone."
And to the degree that it serves us, it is true. Ultimately, we all think of what is good for us as individuals, even when we are doing something for, or considering, others because what we do beneficially redounds to us.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: What Exactly Is Common Sense? We All Think We Have It.
Posted: Friday, September 21, 2018 12:02:23 PM
Epiphileon wrote:
FounDit wrote:
“Common Sense” is nothing more than intelligence guided by experience.

Technically this definition cannot stand as it is too close to the definition of intelligence. I remember learning the most base definition of intelligence is that an organism which modifies its behavior on the basis of experience demonstrates intelligence. TFD defines it, "1. The ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge:..." I think your definition may be closer to wisdom with maybe only a bit more description. Pardon me FounDit but this whole notion of common sense has been a pet peeve of mine since I first strongly objected to the notion that it did not exist when my psychometrics professor made that claim/challenge in a "Psychological Tests: Structure and Construction" class.
I think you are overlooking an important point in my post. I didn't posit common sense as an individual trait, but knowledge and experience accumulated by those who went before us; knowledge and experience that they then attempt to pass on to us.

Quote:
"Each generation attempts to pass on the knowledge and experience it gained over the years to the succeeding generations. The reason it is called “common” is because humans have discovered over the millennia that there are certain rules of behavior that always hold true when weighed against the good of our individual selves and our species."
End quote.

This kind of common sense is the type that says family's units are important to survival; that families united create tribes that promote survival; that individual selfishness can be a threat to the survival of both the family and the tribe. Within that framework, there are certain rules of behavior that have been found to be beneficial, and violations of those rules should not be acceptable. No doubt all of us could think of many, but to name just a couple, fratricide, infanticide, and incest would be some.

In searching for current views on the issue I came across what may be the best definition I've seen yet.
Common Sense Is Neither Common nor Sense wrote:
Common sense, defined as "sound judgment derived from experience rather than study,"
Acutally, and somewhat surprising for me as it is from Psychology Today (a source I usually find rather weak), I would recommend the article that quote is from.
I began reading this article, but the author went too quickly into making it about the individual, and as I said, I don't define it that way. Humans don't have genetic memory, and cannot learn from experience until they either have had such, or accept the teachings of their elders. This is where intelligence comes into play. Only our species has the ability to communicate over the millennia of history to their progeny.

FounDit wrote:
This is the result of selfishness. In the case of politicians, it results from placing selfish desires above what is good for those they allegedly represent. When that happens, laws and regulations are crafted for personal enrichment under the guise of doing good for the people, but which in reality results in social damage. Power corrupts, and that’s why it is important to be very careful to whom we give power. Some can wield it for the benefit of others, but human nature will always move the compass needle back toward the self eventually. And it is selfishness that causes the individual to proclaim that what they think is just "common sense", simply because they believe it. But for it to be truly "common sense", it must be true for everyone.


In principle I agree with this; however, I think the context is wrong, rather than demonstrating individual selfishness, I think what is at work is a larger, more powerful, and far more insidious dynamic, that alluded to in my response that refers to robber barons.

You say that,
"... most likely throughout all of history, perhaps since the time of "The Great Pirates", but definitely since the time of the American Industrialists of the late 19th century, that there has been an effort to consolidate wealth and power into the hands of the few."


I would argue that this has been the desire since the beginning of human history. Whether is is the leader of a small group or a king, pharaoh, or Tzar, this has always been so; and it is always self-centered. And people support it, admire it, and envy it. And when the leader is a good one, the people benefit from it.

The same can be said for the so-called "Robber-Barons". Though the benefited selfishly in their endeavors, the whole society ultimately benefited also. This is the positive side of Capitalism. The workers and investors were exploited, but ultimately benefited from it. We are the recipients of all that today. As with everything, there is a positive and negative side, and always will be. Common sense is simply an attempt to point out the positive benefits learned over the millennia and an encouragement to follow the positive rather than the negative. It is precisely that which motivated me to change my signature to what you see below.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.