Difference between revisions of "Categorization by Narrativism"
From Categorism.com
(Created page with "If “truth” is whatever makes a good story, we only need to know that the bad guys are the bad guys. Definitions and categorizations are secondary, and does...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | If [[narrativism|“truth” is whatever makes a good story]], we only need to know that the bad guys are the bad guys. Definitions and categorizations are secondary, and does not need to be comprehensible. To even try to analyze them would be to ruin the good story. Which may be something that only one of the bad guys would do, anyway. | + | If [[narrativism|“truth” is whatever makes a good story]], we only need to know that the bad guys are the bad guys. Definitions and categorizations are secondary, and [[Incomprehensibilization of the categorization|does not need to be comprehensible]]. To even try to analyze them would be to ruin the good story. Which may be something that only one of the bad guys would do, anyway. |
This is an [[abstraction of categorism]]. | This is an [[abstraction of categorism]]. | ||
Revision as of 16:21, 8 September 2014
If “truth” is whatever makes a good story, we only need to know that the bad guys are the bad guys. Definitions and categorizations are secondary, and does not need to be comprehensible. To even try to analyze them would be to ruin the good story. Which may be something that only one of the bad guys would do, anyway.
This is an abstraction of categorism.
