Haha it’s just that care is a funny word considering to not care you have to not denote it as something that exists anyways. As soon as it is in thought the mind has to care about it even the slightest bit to even acknowledge its existence. In reality ignorance is not caring haha. Go figure haha.
Actually no it can’t since how little I care was never put into words, just the fact that it can’t be put into words.
Well if we define care... that would be simply even acknowledging the subject shows care. Caring in the littlest form possible would be acknowledging how little you care about. And looking back that was put in word form. So once again
care:
a state of mind in which one is troubled; worry, anxiety, or concern
I lack this, because I am not worried nor troubled by him. And the extent of this is impossible to phrase accurately, like trying to define infinity. It just doesn’t work because the extent of it is beyond comprehension.
lern2word
---
Last edited 17 Sep 2008 07:42 pm by watermelon man
Yes and your definition fits what I said. A sign of concern would simply be the thought itself. If it wasn’t present then there would be no concern over it considering it wouldn’t exist to you. But as soon as it becomes a thought or even a glimmer it automatically has care considering it’s a thought.
Simply put to not care about something is not know it exists in the first place. It is definitely something that can be very easily defined.
Zucas wrote:
Yes and your definition fits what I said. A sign of concern would simply be the thought itself. If it wasn’t present then there would be no concern over it considering it wouldn’t exist to you. But as soon as it becomes a thought or even a glimmer it automatically has care considering it’s a thought.
Simply put to not care about something is not know it exists in the first place. It is definitely something that can be very easily defined.
Concern is not the same as acknowledging something exists. Concern is more closely synonymous with “interest”. I “acknowledge” the NHL, however, I am not concerned about (interested in) it, therefore I do not care about it.
Well that begs the question of isn’t acknowledgment enough to be concern or interest. You were concerned enough to acknowledge it’s existence or being. It maybe very very very little concern but it did cross your mind otherwise you wouldn’t know about it at all. And isn’t that the definition of “care” as put.
To acknowledge something you have to understand its existence. To understand something’s existence it has to be a thought. Thoughts are derived by concern or interest. They do not pop up out of nowhere. Thus once again simply put to not care about something it has to not exist within you at all. Ignorance is technically not caring.
Zucas wrote:
Well that begs the question of isn’t acknowledgment enough to be concern or interest. You were concerned enough to acknowledge it’s existence or being. It maybe very very very little concern but it did cross your mind otherwise you wouldn’t know about it at all. And isn’t that the definition of “care” as put.
To acknowledge something you have to understand its existence. To understand something’s existence it has to be a thought. Thoughts are derived by concern or interest. They do not pop up out of nowhere. Thus once again simply put to not care about something it has to not exist within you at all. Ignorance is technically not caring.
Your definitions of what constitutes as what do not abide by the actual strict dictionary definitions of the words. While this logic may be easily applied with your own casual use of the word, speaking of a strictly literate sense it is indeed possible to not care about something even if one acknowledges its existence. Besides, acknowledging existence may only be temporary, as in about an hour I will have forgotten about this man’s death, thus allowing me to, even by your definition, not care about it even though it was introduced to me.
»
Music
» Richard Wright: Keyboardist of Pink Floyd dies at age of 65.
