Innocent premeditated
 

"innocent premeditated neglectin" is something that I recently read. Just those words standing alone.

Im not sure that there isnt something wrong with this picture. These words seem contradictory.

Can something that is premeditated be innocent?

American Heritage Dictionary
Nothing special or ominous about it. The definitions alone allow for them to work together without any predjudice. It's not even all that philosophical of a discussion as you've framed it. Pretty weak even. Premeditate is a verb, innocent an adjective. Why couldn't they be used together? It's not even like an oxymoron. Maybe you need to look up words in the dictionary and understand their definition before you try to pass judgement on them.

I'd say you've been watching too much CSI, Law & Order, and Boston Legal.

Thank you Cynthetiq for your critique of this thread, and of me. I did mean the question in a broader, philosophical sense. It never occurred to me to reckon the words with TV speak.

Looking again at innocent premeditated neglectin I see that the words that are at odds in this statement are premeditated and neglect.

Premeditated neglect can be choosing beforehand to ignore someone or something, e.g. "if she calls me I won't answer the phone."

However, premeditated suggests attention, while neglect is lack of attention, isnt it?

Neglect suggests lack of action, not lack of attention. I think the confusion comes from the fact that, viewed from the outside, neglect appears to lack attention. It often does lack attention, but that's not a necessary feature.

So now you revise your discussion point. Yes, neglect is lack of attention, but again, premediated doesn't mean attention. Where do you find that premeditated suggests attention? What filter are you using in order to come up with such a notion?

There's nothing philosphical about this discussion at all, in fact, I'd call it nonsense really because it's no better than grabbing three random words and trying to find some sort of odd philosphical tie to bind them in some fashion. I'd even go so far as to liken it to the Revenge of the Nerds scene where the jock smokes pot with the nerds and rambles some philosphical sounding nonsense.

If we can't come up with any real philosophical discussion or even frame this into a philosophical discsussion aside from a philosophical phononeme, this discussion doesn't belong here but is more fitting in nonsense.

another philosophy
a stand alone word
a discussion all on its own,
nonsensical if you like :

peace.

I think the judge, jury, and executioner just vomited its vitriolic sentence,
upon us all.

I thought TFP was better than this.
I am sorely dissapointed.

Ouch.

I agree that this is just a semantics debate phrased as philosophy. Not much to it. Try harder, I say.

I apologize if my previous comments seemed too 'harsh,'
but I did that on purpose.

I desire for all of us to try harder.

How do we encourage critical thinking without tipping over into hostility-land?

I hope she comes back to flesh out her thoughts more clearly,
but if someone likened my thoughts to "Pot smoking induced rambling that
belongs in nonsense," well,I would probably bristle at that for a while.

So now what?

S'mores anyone?
I'm buyin...

much actual philosophical work is about semantics.
so i don't see the genre problem.


but the phrase isn't tuned enough to do much work.


premeditated innocent presumes:
(a) some kind of criminal context in which the terms are a contradiction
or
(b) some version of a different type of contradiction, on the order of "mediated immediacy"---but that you might experience if you were really into a television program, experienced it immediately, say.

you could see in choosing not to do a criminal act a premeditated innocence.



after thinking about it for a while, i decided to neglect neglecting.


but that's about the phrase.
can one be self-consciously unself-conscious?
sure.

I'm not sure, in my world it is the individual who is responsible for how their percieve and understand things, and to find it within themselves to understand why they are upset by something. This means that the other external individuals are not or cannot be responsible for the internal feelings of one's self. In simplistic terms, there is no reason to look for flame where there is none, but simply to say that there is smoke and leave the room is a bit on the overly cautious side.

I'm not sure about the genre protocols, but if this is to be dissected on the merits of philosophy on 3 words grouped together, then in following your semantics, the very fact you've altered the order changes the meaning and thus the philosophy behind it.

Does this mean we could have philosophical discussion via random word generator systems?

we could use Random Word Generator (Plus) and just grab the first three words to see what kind of philosophy we can garner from it.

Oddly enough it seemed the game easier played with just 2 since I'm also neglecting negletcin (which I can't find for any word in any dictionary at all.)

Now if we were to talk about philosphy from 2 words, I'd say it's easy to start with something wherein there is assocation to the words, such as "I am" since there are whole lifetimes of study associated with Yahweh.

Your ending at least puts us into a construct of familiarity which is more on the plane of oxymoron, and less about philosophy.