I have just spent more than an hour imagining other uses for the word "being" for expressing always existing statuses and feeling bad about how wrong I was in supporting my position by arguing that cannot happen except artistically. But in exchange I think that I got a much better substitute that stands against all those cases. Here is the new argument:
When a person speaks his speech is taken as being within time not timeless unless proven otherwise and the constitution is no exception to this. "being" taken as intended to refer to an always true fact here can be seen either as timeless or as adding persistency thorough out time and both need proof from the side making that claim.
Even if one sees the amendment as a rule intended for renewed applications and believes that the probability of intending to refer to that specific application only, prevents a constitution from making rules by examples, the subjective talk we have here states the result (the part after the second comma) undissolved and separate from the situation described in the cause (the part before the second comma).
So my position for the purpose of the word "being" is not only stronger with signs supporting it but also can fit the default way that word should be taken here while that of the opposing side can not.
To put the main argument here in different words one could say that the speech of a man comes from his existence and his environment is an extension to that existence. Therefore unless a more limited version of that existence is proved as the action taker, a time related reference should be taken as relative to that environment because it is part of the existence that preceded the action. Even if all other environments needed for making "being" equivalent to "always" are also seen as extensions to the speaker here, those environments did not precede the action in existence and therefore do not have the same priority for taking the time related reference as part of them like the one that existed at that time.
This is the common view in the universe and a proof is required for claiming that things should be otherwise when making a constitution.
If there were a part of a constitution saying "Horses should be allowed everywhere", I would not be able to make for it the same argument I am making here. That is because the passing of time has no effect on the definition of what a horse is and therefore past and present environments can be taken as one. But when there is a reference to the occurring of an occurrence, that occurring is not the same while time passes and therefore past and present environments cannot be taken as one.
Even if one sees the amendment as a rule intended for renewed applications and believes that the probability of intending to refer to that specific application only, prevents a constitution from making rules by examples, the subjective talk we have here states the result (the part after the second comma) undissolved and separate from the situation described in the cause (the part before the second comma).
So my position for the purpose of the word "being" is not only stronger with signs supporting it but also can fit the default way that word should be taken here while that of the opposing side can not.
To put the main argument here in different words one could say that the speech of a man comes from his existence and his environment is an extension to that existence. Therefore unless a more limited version of that existence is proved as the action taker, a time related reference should be taken as relative to that environment because it is part of the existence that preceded the action. Even if all other environments needed for making "being" equivalent to "always" are also seen as extensions to the speaker here, those environments did not precede the action in existence and therefore do not have the same priority for taking the time related reference as part of them like the one that existed at that time.
This is the common view in the universe and a proof is required for claiming that things should be otherwise when making a constitution.
If there were a part of a constitution saying "Horses should be allowed everywhere", I would not be able to make for it the same argument I am making here. That is because the passing of time has no effect on the definition of what a horse is and therefore past and present environments can be taken as one. But when there is a reference to the occurring of an occurrence, that occurring is not the same while time passes and therefore past and present environments cannot be taken as one.
No comments:
Post a Comment