Quote:
By over thinking and underthing... I meant you were overanalyzing (on one hand) and ignoring obvious common sense things on the other ( being penny wise and pound foolish with your mental energy).
Going into all of that math stuff- but not thinking of stark images of starving children in Somalia (or wherever) from the news that might come to many peoples minds.
Being close to death is usually considered to be an unenviable state.
Being actually dead- I dunno. If you want- I will shoot you to death - and you can report back on how you like it-if you want. Just kidding. But the point is that we dont live on an island of 100 people- we live on this vast veil of tears called Earth in which you can always imagine someone worse off than yourself. Thats just common sense.
But I dont use the expression much either- even though I do get the meaning.
There are 6.974 billion people on the planet Earth. This is a huge but finite series. In a finite series, unless all of the values are the same, we will have the highest number and the lowest number. In fact, it is possible to have multiple entries have the same numbers including n amount of them being the highest or lowest number in the series.
Actually, I was thinking of starving children in Somalia. They really do have it pretty bad. This would be considered a low number in the series. When you state you can always imagine someone worse than yourself how is this logically possible for all 6.974 billion people who exist today if all 6.974 billion people tried to do this? At least one person would have to have it worse of it all and at least one person would have to have it best of all.
Can one do the inverse to this which is this? Can all 6.974 billion people on our Earth today always find someone who is better than them? If someone has it the best or the worst how can they find someone that is worse or better than them? Your statement excludes a best and worst or top ranking or a bottom ranking.
The only way I see it as possible is we would have to have an infinite series. This means we would have to have an infinite amount of people to meet the condition that you state. The logic you're stating to me makes no sense to me. How is it logically possible to claim what you claim?
You state it is common sense. Does common sense mean what this dictionary says it means?
Definition: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/common+sense
The way I wrote it is as simple as I see it. To me, those who live by and state this assertion are disregarding a simple fact that all entries have a high point and a low point excluding those in which all entries equal each other. To me, what I am writing is a simple perception of the situation or facts. How is it not? If this isn't then what does simple perception of the situation or facts mean?
I don't grasp your logical reasoning at all.