trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 12:51 am
Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 11:17 pm
trokanmariel wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 9:08 pm
I ask, because of the dichotomy, that people are trading organisms, meaning they are supposed to trade with all of one another; since trading needs names, it makes sense for every person to know the name of every other person
That makes, precisely, ZERO sense.
I'll clarify:
Trade needs people's names,
'Trade' does NOT 'need' people's names.
Human beings 'trade' things while NEVER knowing the names of the people they are trading with.
trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 12:51 am
because trading is society,
'Trading' is trading, and, 'trading' is NOT 'society'. 'Society' is society.
trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 12:51 am
and society means people's names being used.
'Society' does NOT mean people's names being used.
That human beings USE people names while living in 'societies' does NOT mean ANY thing like you propose here.
trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 12:51 am
Because trade is inevitable,
'Trade', itself, is NOT inevitable.
trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 12:51 am
meaning that the use of people's names is inevitable,
Human beings AND societies can and DID exist WITHOUT trading and WITHOUT people's names. So, the use of people's names is NOT inevitable. However, in saying that, the chances of human beings not using people's names while human beings are still existing would, I say, be extremely slim.
this means that all people should know all people's names[/quote]
Absolutely NOTHING of what you have just said here infers that ANY of that MEANS that ALL human beings "should" KNOW ALL people's names.
trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 12:51 am
This is a Samuel L Jackson truth, not a Morgan Freeman one
What does this mean, EXACTLY?