Hacker News Reader

Comment by margalabargala | Hacker News Reader

That sounds to me like fuzzily having a version of the book. That is, it's more like having the book, than having nothing would be.

You seem to be arguing that a translation, etc is not literally having the book, which is something that has always been my stance as well.

View on HN

You're trying to use the Socratic method to show that the havingness of the book is a spectrum, and I'm taking the position of a hardliner who considers that "having the book" means having the original string of symbols from beginning to end, and anything besides that is not having the book. I'm trying to show you that your line of argumentation is uncompelling to such a person.

I was never using the Socratic method. I was asking rhetorical questions, and then gave the (my) answer at the end.

We just have different opinions about what it means to have a book. I think that having a copy of "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" is more like having a copy of "Pride and Prejudice", than having no book at all is like having a copy of that book. You disagree and that's fine.

Asking rhetorical questions as a form of argumentation is the Socratic method.

If one is using the Socratic method, rhetorical questions are one tool they might employ.

The reverse is not true. Just because someone asks a rhetorical question, does not mean they are using the Socratic method.

I agree having a book is something fuzzy, I for instance consider that if i have even one word from a book, then i sort of have that book, idk it’s not black and white there are shades of grey!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com