Vocabulary is a...

[darksyndrem]

Originally Posted by WhoIsDaffy

what i'm trying to say is that ultimnatly everything is dependent on quark-gluon interaction (on the quantum level)

you can take it as far back or forwards as you like.

chicken and egg (PS egg came first)

Which really doesn't help me at all

[WhoIsDaffy]

im trying to say that you can say that someone knowing how to play the pioano is dependent on whatever you like.

thier parents, thier teachers parents.

the fact that when their teacher was 5 a rabbid dog attacked and killed his friend and not him,

there are infinite possibilities, thus infinite causes, it depends on how accuratly you care to measure it.

so the answer to your theory is anything between (but not including) 0-1

whats the tittle of your essay?

[darksyndrem]

Originally Posted by WhoIsDaffy

im trying to say that you can say that someone knowing how to play the pioano is dependent on whatever you like.

thier parents, thier teachers parents.

the fact that when their teacher was 5 a rabbid dog attacked and killed his friend and not him,

there are infinite possibilities, thus infinite causes, it depends on how accuratly you care to measure it.

so the answer to your theory is anything between (but not including) 0-1

whats the tittle of your essay?

Who told you I was asking for an answer to this theory? It's not *my* theory. There's a name for this, and I'm asking what it is.

[WhoIsDaffy]

tis called cause and effect

[darksyndrem]

Originally Posted by WhoIsDaffy

tis called cause and effect

No, it's not. Go read my first two posts. The idea is that a depends on b, while b depends on c, and c depends on d. Does that make more sense?

[WhoIsDaffy]

well its not going to fit into your sentence,

but, thats what your talking about.

action-reaction - your just looking at it from the other side

reaction-action

ability (reaction) - learning (action)

its simple Newtonian physics with a quantum/universal twist (god i love the way physics explains absolutely everything!)

but im suspecting that your looking at it from a sociological point of view.
in which case you are refering to technological evolution/advancement/development

however you are talking about a system,
so its going to be a systems theory

===quoting===

A pianist cannot BE TAUGHT the art, unless someone was there to build a piano, or to tune it. However, this is merely one example of the Complex adaptive system that has lead to technological advances in humanity,

===meh===

is that what your looking for? (its a fairly broad term so should fit the bill)

in biology it would fall into the camp of Developmental Psychobiology

thats why i am curious as to the tittle of your essay

[darksyndrem]

Hmm that's not exactly what I was thinking of, but it sounds convincing.

My essay does not have a title, it's a personal essay for an application. But the topic is, "Hannah Arendt claims, 'For true greatness, the presence of others is required.' Write an essay about how individual accomplishment depends on some sense of other people."

[WhoIsDaffy]

Originally Posted by darksyndrem

Hmm that's not exactly what I was thinking of, but it sounds convincing.

My essay does not have a title, it's a personal essay for an application. But the topic is, "Hannah Arendt claims, 'For true greatness, the presence of others is required.' Write an essay about how individual accomplishment depends on some sense of other people."

well i'd start of by asking,

define greatness (for extra credit )

it "depends on some sense of other people"

does this mean that the question is asking weather or not we can achieve greatness without an "awareness" of those around us?

its quite a philosophical question,

or does the question asks weather we achieve greatness without the imput of others,

greatness of the person implies that there must be those that are not great.

ying yang, no darkness without light.

thus if you are alone, you cannot be great as it is a comparative term used to set men (unisex) apart from others.

but again i think you would need to first quantify this "greatness"

after all, did the first caveman to recieve fire from the titan's not have greatness?

and that was not based on the imput of others,

there must always be a first.

often that first, is given the title of greatness for having the vision to do what was not done before.

but would that first cave man be the best fire starter in the wrold ever,?

probably not,

but then again.

does one have to be the best to be the greatest?

interesting question

[darksyndrem]

I'm already two paragraphs into it. Though I need about 500 more words for it to be "finished", right now, I think it's pretty damn good. I may put it up here when I'm done; it is an interesting topic indeed.

[manganimefan227]

I'd agree with interdependance . . .