Were you only looking for the definition of public “things?”
I think the idea here is for you to exert your power of reason again, and again, and again, because that power is contagious.
You become the teacher, to yourself, to me, to anyone reading.
The definition you have, works, so far as I can tell, so far, in my current thinking. This is a current question without a current answer to me. You are answering the current question, not me.
I'm just asking the question. I have a grasp on a general understanding as to why the specific question is vital. You may not see that, but your work is gaining ground. So my request is to simply focus effort, in your own thinking, on tackling the concept of the word private, in your own thinking.
If you prefer, retreat, go back, test the definition of public, here, there, as many places, as many ways, as you want, try to find where it does not work, why it does not work, if it does not work, it works for me everywhere, but try, if you must, to retreat back to public, before attacking private again.
Get a working definition of public bullet proof, in your own mind, then attack private, if you want, but I think it may be a good idea to just work on the working definition of private as if you are working on Mission Impossible, and you are the only person on the planet Earth that may have the slightest wild chance to solve the word problem, so you give it a go, despite the odds against anyone, ever, discovering a working definition that works, really works, not something that is one meaning one second and the opposite meaning the next second.
Private, all alone, means exactly this, in this situation, and this situation, and this situation, every time, each time, and there is no way I can see to find that, without working on it.
I've been working on this, and so far, no luck, there is almost always a contradiction that shows up right away.
Private means "not public". How many times have I used that definition only to find that my definition of public was shown to be inadequate?
Now I have public meaning that it is for use without prejudice, so...private is now not for use without prejudice, but that does not work, not exactly. How about for use with prejudice?
I think there is no power in it. Maybe, it seems to me, in current thinking, that public is not the opposite of prejudice, but I don't know. I get confused.
I am circling this dragon, asking for you to circle it too, and if you find the way to subdue the dragon, make it a pet dragon, then why should I kill it?
Does that make sense?
"Secondly, regarding public things, do you feel that private is somewhat opposite of public? Sometimes I’m inclined to think you might not like Private, because Public goes with Socialism and Private maybe not so much."
I did not read ahead, but we appear (after reading that, after writing my "kill the dragon" words) to be on the same orbit around this dragon. I see you on the other side as I look over the dragon on my orbit.
So, yes, private and public appear to be opposites, and that may be a mistake.
"A private person may arrest a felon."
That looks like a clue to me; but your working definition may be very good to find soon, rather than your current thinking becoming something better (or worse) than it is now, and the opportunity is thereby lost. We can't go back to your current thinking in the past, now is current thinking, and the future is as unaccessible as is the past.
If you find it now, document it, that work may pay off, like money in the bank, for future reference.
What was I thinking?
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not end