1. Boring language

"The Philosophy of Children can be divided logically into two movements: The Philosophy over Children and The Philosophy in Children."

2. Wimpish, bizarre language

"To me you introduce a philosophical movement. The Philosophy of Children. I'm interested in this movement because of my deep desire to be responsible, caring and loving as a father. Why do pop-songs never mention children... I guess for the same reason that philosophy never mentions children..."

3. Full of himself-language

"Strange things inside me makes me interested in The Philosophy of Children: My desperation sometimes has the same color as the desperation of a child."

4. Surrealistic language

"I'm a middle aged man, but I'm also a child."

1. Boring language

"If it makes you happy, it can't be that ba-a-a-ad." (Sheryl Crow!)

2. Wimpish, bizarre language

"Stoicism can not contain itself. Stoics misinterpret feelings and human nature and set unnatural limits to other people. They prioritize their -ism over being interested in the well-being of themselves and others." (Nietzsche?)

3. Full of himself-language

"Marcus Aurelius is mad!" (Commodus?)

4. Surrealistic language

"'You are old, Father William,' the young man said,/'And your hair has become very white;/And yet you incessantly stand on your head—/Do you think, at your age, it is right?'//'In my youth,' Father William replied to his son,/'I feared it might injure the brain;/But now that I'm perfectly sure I have none,/Why, I do it again and again.'" (Lewis Carroll)

The language type you present us with here is passionate which is cool. But I'm unsure how to categorize it. It seems too straight-forward. You miss something, I'm afraid. As you may know my interests these days are limited to four language types. Could you please make some statement that are either boring, wimpish/bizarre, full of yourself or surrealistic within the subject of fame? Let's laugh a bit! Let me try...

1. Boring language

"Are you familiar with The Sword of Damocles myth?"

2. Bizarre, wimpish language

"Famous people have too much power over their tone in this global village of ours. In some sense people of fame are stuck with their tone. Interesting!"

3. Full of himself-language

"We humans seek and deserve recognition, not fame. We humans seek and derserve a welfare society, not a lot of money in our bank accounts."

4. Surrealistic language

"Personality is everything." (Charlie Chaplin)

There's certainly something nice about watching a Brad Pitt movie because his personality is so big. Also, this sentence presents us with memorable language because it points to a surrealistic fact:

Aside from bringing recognizion to the individual, fame seems to enforce a role of leadership to those who have it. — Alejandro

This post is a preliminary investigation. I'm not sure it'll ever end. We must act and talk as philosophical authorities but we must limit ourselves to those four language types because they are manageable and entertaining. We must be disciplined. So far we have not produced much memorable language, Alejandro.

Consider the two statements: "I love you just the way you are" and "Without each other there ain't nothin', (not even you or me)'". They may sound cliché, but they are true in the metaphysical and ethical sense. Not only as isolated statements; they clearly give meaning to the word "you". If those two sentences were non-sensical "you" would mean the same as the word "that". A tame cat can not fully come to terms with whether a human is a "you" or a "that". Although it struggles with this question several times every day. :-)

I entered your question into the database of my app some 15 minutes ago. I'm sure the users of Philosophy Challenge will understand what I mean. Currently the only user is a guy called Wittgenstein, though.

Yes. I certainly agree. I also agree with DingoJones who disagrees. But I don't like the language game of agreeing when it is combined with the language game of being naive, because naivety is immoral, and I don't want to be immoral when I speak with you Daniel. I'm not philosophically interested in the language game of naivety. If I said only "Yes. I certainly agree" I would use the language type of being full of myself. If I said "I agree with you 100 percent, Daniel" I would 1. lie or 2. be smarmy.

Let's take a closer look at your statement:

"A state of no variance is a state of nothingness."

1. In my view that's a surreal statement!

2. Here's the boring version of the same statement:

"A state should have a life in the same sense that every other organism lives."

3. Here's the language type where the speaker is full of himself:

"My country is dead."

4. And here's the wimpish/bizarre version:

"I hate my country!"