In a message dated 9/26/2015 7:32:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx writes in "AFAICA (as far as I'm concerned
Without me perceiving nothing would exist, not as far as I'm concerned
anyway. ... All existence ... as far as I'm concerned ... exists only because
exist to perceive it. Earlier I said : "as far as I'm concerned" -- that
was wrong because once I'm dead there will be no me to have concern.
Indeed. Aristotle would disagree. He once philosophised over happiness,
and concluded: 'don't call a man happy until he is dead'. He later corrected
his view. He thought that a man's future generations should have an effect
on the man's happiness. His views were, of course, criticised.
The 'not' indeed is controversial. The original Geary claim included two
negatives, as I recall:
i. Nothing would exist, not as far as I'm concerned.
It may be the 'not' in 'not as far as I'm concerned' is transmitted or
inherited from the previous clause, so indeed I would agree with Geary that the
phrase in the positive
needs an acronym.
I add the 'm' for I am', since in this, it differs from
as used by McEvoy, which standing for "I know" does not need an 'am'.
The 'anyway' while emphatic, may be left out of the acronym. It seems that
the colloquial implicature of 'afaimc' is 'NOT far', cfr.
iv. As far as I can see (not far I think), Kant might be right.
or, for a literal use of 'see':
v. As far as I could see, the winner was the American Pharoah.
Or, if you must in a present-tense scenario:
vi. As far as I can see (not far, I admit), the winner was the American
Geary is using the colloquialism LITERALLY, which is good. But then so is
McEvoy when he thinks he can use "as far as I know" as prefacing what Popper
would call a 'conjecture', if not a 'refutation'.
It's all different with Dame Edith Evans:
vii. On a clear day, I can see as far as Marlowe and Beaumont and Fletcher.
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html