Reply
Mon 7 Feb, 2005 08:55 pm
First read these two definitions on philosophy:
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
Now see if you know what this means below:
The FBI has caught the man suspected in the murder of so-n-so. The suspect, being honest, says, infront of the FBI agents: I had gone to kill so-no-so. I had gone to have so-n-so killed.
^^^Did that mean he confessed that he killed so-n-so, based on that statement of his made? Or did he not mean he killed so-n-so at all, based on that statement of his made?
The statements don't indicate that he did or didn't kill anyone.
In the 1st statement he apparently "confessed" to going, personally, to find this person ("so-n-so") with the intent to kill them but that's all the statement says.
The 2nd statement indicates that he went to find someone else to kill so-n-so.
But "going to" do something doesn't mean that they actually did anything one way or the other. He could have shown up at the person's house abnd found so-n-so already dead.
How can you ever prove that someone is being honest is a better question.
Anyhow.... I believe that it indicates that he did not kill anyone, well hrmmm... this is a real toss up actually. But i suppose since he was telling the truth, say he is although you can never actually tell based on this information because, you dont give clear information as to the outcome of this murder, or if there were even any other suspects involved. Nor did you provide us with the motive of why or why not he would want to kill so-n-so. Im going to have to agree with fishin that he did not state wether or not he killed someone, or dint kill someone based on the information you provided us, if you provided us some more info though, we might be able to make a clearer judgement upon this question.
Assuming the verity of his statements, that the speaker used the grammar correctly, that vocal tone and context does not alter the message, that your shift from so-n-so to so-no-so was unintentional and that my knowledge of grammar is correct...
The first statement indicates that he in the past, went to a location (at which he is implied to have successfully arrived yet no longer be present) in order to kill so-n-so. Taken on it's own it somewhat implies through its indirect speak that the attempt was unsuccessful though that is not assured.
The second statement indicates that he in the past, went to a location (at which he is implied to have successfully arrived yet no longer be present) in order to indirectly organise the death of so-n-so. Again it somewhat implies failure though with no degree of certainty.
The statements reveal intention, nothing more. The desire to have someone cleared away. In themselves the statements prove nothing.
I don't know if so-n-so and so-no-so is the same person or jyst a tyoing error.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace