Really Seriously Deep Question

[Maulds]

If you try to fail...and succeed, which have you done?

 

[hhayes]

uhh...both

 

[GuesSAngel]

yeah i guess that you succeeded at failing?

 

[Tim]

This is a case where Bertrand Russell's Theory of Types -- cf., PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA -- comes in handy. When you use a phrase such as "succeed in failing" the words are respectively on different levels of valuation.

You have done both -- succeeded and failed -- but to avoid paradox, you need to consider that each of these is on a different Type level, compressed into the lowest type -- and thus, by using Type Theory, the ambiguity is removed.

Some analogies: We have it in stock, but it is not on the shelf at the moment.........It is both "in stock" but "out of stock."
A nurse is "on duty" but she is sleeping at her desk.
An actor whose role is as a corpse in a play on the stage is both "a corpse" and at the same time "not a corpse." Robert S. Hartman pointed out that Type Theory comes to the rescue.

 

[elluko]

that is deep, man

 

[lemon]

actually, type theory is not needed. just leave it as a level of concepts, and you will find that it is easy to understand.

you failed at something. but if you planned to fail, you succeeded, but then you would have never failed in the first place, since you planned it out, leaving only success.

understand?

 

[Haus]

This is a case where Bertrand Russell's Theory of Types -- cf., PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA -- comes in handy. When you use a phrase such as "succeed in failing" the words are respectively on different levels of valuation.

You have done both -- succeeded and failed -- but to avoid paradox, you need to consider that each of these is on a different Type level, compressed into the lowest type -- and thus, by using Type Theory, the ambiguity is removed.

Some analogies: We have it in stock, but it is not on the shelf at the moment.........It is both "in stock" but "out of stock."
A nurse is "on duty" but she is sleeping at her desk.
An actor whose role is as a corpse in a play on the stage is both "a corpse" and at the same time "not a corpse." Robert S. Hartman pointed out that Type Theory comes to the rescue.

my head hurts.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

You've done neither. If you've succeeded at failing, you can't fail. Nor can you succeed... because nothing productive has been accomplished as a result of your accomplishment in succeeding to fail.

 

[hhayes]

uhhh yeah that too

 

[chish_boy]

actually, type theory is not needed. just leave it as a level of concepts, and you will find that it is easy to understand.

you failed at something. but if you planned to fail, you succeeded, but then you would have never failed in the first place, since you planned it out, leaving only success.

understand?

i dont think anyone can understand that!

 

[elluko]

me neither.

 

[White2000GT]

I think all of you are looking way too deep into this. Anytime the word "fail" is used in a situation, it automatically overrides any sort of success. So, if you succeed at failing... you failed. If you failed to succeed... you failed.

 

[chish_boy]

both, iguess, either that or neither...

 

[chish_boy]

why would you ask a question like that?

 

[White2000GT]

Hey chish, is there actually a place in Australia called Queannsland, or did you purposefully misspell Queensland? Just curious.

 

[Maritxu]

yeah i guess that you succeeded at failing?

yes. And you also failed by succeeding

 

[MichaelE]

If you try to fail...and succeed, which have you done?

Let me see if I can figure this out with an example. Let's say you try to fail at basketball. Every shot you take you purposely shoot wildly so it just clangs off the backboard and doesn't get close to going in.

So in this case, the outcome you're looking for is to NOT make the shot.

You didn't make a shot.

So:
success = failing to make a shot
failure = making a shot

So you succeeded at "failing".

 

[Maulds]

why would you ask a question like that?

Because I'm a new guy here who just wanted to start a thread to get noticed and interact a little, and I had a complete brainfart on what to do...but then I noticed the Philosophy topic and this was the deepest topic I could present at that moment. The next one will be much deeper.

 

[elluko]

Let me see if I can figure this out with an example. Let's say you try to fail at basketball. Every shot you take you purposely shoot wildly so it just clangs off the backboard and doesn't get close to going in.

So in this case, the outcome you're looking for is to NOT make the shot.

You didn't make a shot.

So:
success = failing to make a shot
failure = making a shot

So you succeeded at "failing".

agreed.

 

[Maulds]

My 2 cents worth, if you try to fail and succeed, then you succeeded. You achieved your objective.