Re:The Death of Daydreaming: What we lose when phones take a...
by soulofmischief on Tuesday May 06, 2025 @02:22PM
(#43908105)
The issue is the absolutist claim of a lack of objective value. From a purely philosophical standpoint, you really can't make that claim about almost anything (within reason).
Re:The Death of Daydreaming: What we lose when phones take a...
by aziaziazi on Tuesday May 06, 2025 @04:37PM
(#43909386)
I responded in a sibling thread. Just note that your usage of "almost anything" here is probably the objectively right way to use absolute quantifiers, however it doesn't seems to me you're trying to be pedantic but instead want to discuss the meaning itself. In that sense we could say something like:
"You really can't say 'anything' about almost everything without a proximity quantifier like 'almost'".
Re:The Death of Daydreaming: What we lose when phones take a...
by LordGrignard on Monday May 12, 2025 @08:17AM
(#43962124)
of course. I wasn't trying to be "correct" or trying to be nuanced here. My goal was to make the lazier people reading the comment to be more intrigued by the line (which itself i did not invent by myself just paraphrasing the book as seen above), in order to be pushed towards opening the link and reading it.
(i apologize in advance but this really feels like an "uhm akshually" on your part )
The reasons themselves can be anything. Ethic is a powerful one, we often see life changes for psychic and/or physic health, time gain (time/benefit of an activity), money, whatever. Those methods are tools to self-help achieve your own goal. When it worked, we’re proud and keen to share it with friends and the world.