That sounds like the same thing! A distinction without a difference. — TheMadFool

distinction: a difference between two similar things

The Cambridge dictionary and I see no difference between 'distinction' and 'difference'. Could you tell us where the difference is?

A distinction without a difference — TheMadFool

I am not the one who refers to illusions in those texts. [u[They are by Camus[/u]. From the Introduction to The Myth of Sisyphus. Anyway, you centre your objection to Camus on the distinction between illusory and real. If you do not want to use those words you will have to use others to distinguish what is only in your head from what exists outside it — David Mo

You speak as if you're coming at this issue from a standpoint that's not predicated, according to you, on Camus' real-illusion distinction.

Then you suggest that I should do something that's different viz. "you will have to use others to distinguish what is only in your head from what exists outside" but that's precisely what Camus' real-illusion distinction is.

In other words, you've made a distinction but there's no difference between what you claim are distinct. A distinction without a difference.

I'm sorry but your answer doesn't clarify anything about the two things I asked you:

1) How does a difference differ from a distinction? How do you define difference and distinction?
2) Don't you see a difference (or distinction) between something that only happens in your head and something that exists outside it?

How does a difference differ from a distinction? — David Mo

This is not coming from a dicitonary, but from my own analysis of how I use and how I've ever seen used these two words: distinciton and difference.

A difference can be named. It can sometimes be measured. "The difference between Peter and Paul is that their names end in letters that are not the same." "The difference between Peter and Paul is that one is taller than the other." "The difference between 5 and 8 is 2." (Woke you up dint it.)

A distinction is a difference that is not measurable or definable. "Peter finished his dissertation with distinciton." (The event or quality that made him outstanding is not revealed, and can't be inferred from this utterance.) "Our guests of distinciton are Peter and Paul." (No idea why they are different form us, clue is not given; they are just named as different, but no amount of thinking will yield results as to what it is that make them are diffferent.)

A distinction means also that the difference is honourable, that the difference renders the different person not only different in laterally valuable ways, but different in a ranking of some scale from lower to higher ranks.

2) Don't you see a difference (or distinction) between something that only happens in your head and something that exists outside it? — David Mo

Well, the question is a bit ambivalent. If I see a house, I see a house, so the image is in my mind (in my head) and outside. There is no difference.

But if I see a house, and I think I should eat lunch, then there is a huge difference between what I see and what happens only in my head.

The question begs for context, but I'll be damned if I wade through TheMadFool's posts trying to find a particular needle among many in a haystack.

Jey, I just had a deja vous experience. "Trying to find a particular needle in a haystack" is an expression I heard in my twenties and was incapable of properly parse it to understand it. I was a very disturbed young man. I remember I agonized over what it could mean. I was mentally and emotionally challenged at the time. "what do you mean particular needle? One specific needle, and if yes, what would it be that made the needle specific, since for all intents and purposes there is no discernible difference between needles? And if there are many needles, wouldn't that alone increase my chances of finding one needle of them? And would that one needle be the particular needle I needed, or a different one, and how would I know whether it was the real McCoy or not?"---- These are quasi-rational thoughts, because they make sense. Their only fault is the incapabality of the thinker to think conceptually and metaphorically. But there were other thoughts, too, that were not rational, but muddled and unclear, which i can't reproduce, because i can't remember them, and I can't remember them because now I can only think in what I believe are logical and reasonable ways.

Well, the question is a bit ambivalent. If I see a house, I see a house, so the image is in my mind (in my head) and outside. There is no difference. — god must be atheist

What do you mean there is no difference? Close your eyes and paint the house red. You can do it. Open your eyes and paint the house you are seeing green in red. You can't. Because the house exists outside your head.

I can give you more transcendental examples, if you like.

A distinction is a difference that is not measurable or definable. "Peter finished his dissertation with distinciton." — god must be atheist

Sorry. Distinction has two meanings. We are not talking about the one you mention. I use the word in the sense I said above.

distinction: a difference between two similar things

Oh, I have definitely have felt that the real world is indifferent and hostile to my most human desires and that this same reality has made me feel helpless. This has happened quite often, but for the sake of my conversation, I should have qualified that it 'can' be relieving. This is what I meant, sorry for not qualifying even more specifically. I am not perfect, haha! Thanks for pointing this out.

Knowing that my impulses and desires are often pitted against by the real world being indifferent or hostile towards them has been difficult and has made me helpless on countless occasions, especially with the death of loves ones. But, in other areas, it can be relieving, especially when you accept that there is not a list of meaningful actions or achievements one must meet in their life - like what many people in American society seem to 'need' to have a 'great life.' Living in this way can make someone more miserable in my opinion because they will eventually be met with the absurdity of the 'real world' being indifferent or hostile to their aims.

You're not the first case I've met. But I find it hard to believe that you have never felt that the real world is indifferent or hostile to your most human desires and that this has not made you feel a sense of helplessness. This is absurd. — David Mo

It is indeed absurd, but that's my point. It is relieving to 'know' or 'believe' in the view that life is meaningless, and yet it also lends itself to feelings of helplessness when met with great suffering, anxiety, conundrums. But, in my opinion, it may actually provide more relief than the other than does not believe that life is meaningless. Let's suppose we have two hypothetical people. One believes, and is convinced, that life is meaningless. One believes, and is convinced, that life is not meaningless. When met with unexpected news or situations that may be negatives, the one that believes that life is meaningless will most likely be, at least, a tad bit more prepared and equipped for the negative. Now, this is all possible. Obviously, many other factors may contribute to the opposite taking place, but, in my humble opinion, this is what I believe to be true. Therefore, sometimes, it can be and may be relieving.

It is relieving to 'know' or 'believe' in the view that life is meaningless, — The Questioning Bookworm

I believe, with Camus, that the role of philosophy is not to comfort without lucidity. Philosophy is a project for human self-knowledge and consolation without lucidity is self-deception about humanity. I do not deny that some horrible circumstances can justify self-deception. Mitigating circumstances, I would say. But not as a rule.

distinction: a difference between two similar things — David Mo

I do not accept this definition. It is incomplete. if you use this definition, you throw away the difference between "difference" and "distinction". Difference can be denoted quanti- and qualitatively. The difference could be that something is more green, heavier, a number, or a measurement. Distinction is a difference which carries the nuance meaning that the difference can't be described quali- or quantitatively. It means there is a difference, but it defies the description of difference.

While my definition does NOT contradict your definition, it is more complete, it is true, and is not partial, and therefore my definition ought to be used, not yours which you got from Cambridge.

Some more examples to claim that my definition is better:

The distinction between 5 and 8 is 3.

The the two houses have a distinction in the hue of green they are painted.

The distiniction between David Mo and me is that we disagree on the meaning of distinciton.

-----------------

In the above three examples, the word "distinction" does not fit, it is not a proper way to use it. But if you put "difference" in the place of the imporperly used word "distinction", then the sentences will read normally.

This ought to prove to you that the two words are not equivalent; there is more than just idiomatic or traditional differences in usage; you ought to see that there is a difference in meaning between the two.

Well, the question is a bit ambivalent. If I see a house, I see a house, so the image is in my mind (in my head) and outside. There is no difference.
— god must be atheist

What do you mean there is no difference? Close your eyes and paint the house red. You can do it. Open your eyes and paint the house you are seeing green in red. You can't. — David Mo

You are adding a whole bunch of EXTRENOUS qualifiers. Yes, the two images CAN be made different; but there are instances when they are not different. Whereas you deny that they are the same, under ANY circumstances.

Well there are circumstances when they are the same. I am not denying that they can't be different; but that that was not your proposition. Here you keep moving the goal posts, so to speak, David Mo. You are a clear thinker and a very smart person, and you ough to know that I catch tricks in arguments like that almost immediately on the spot.

I think it would be easier for your to admit I am right, but that takes an ego hurdle, I admit. I can't require that from you, as I don't know you and thus I am not convinced you are capable of that. Why ask for the impossible, eh? Do as you wish, but please don't employ ill logic or fallacies; let's keep this discussion clean and sportsmanlike.

To be honest, I never expected you to move goal posts, or to make logically illegal references that connect two unrelated propostions, like you did in our discussion on what it is that constitutes the difference between "difference" and "distinciton".

I do not accept this definition. It is incomplete. — god must be atheist

I don't see the difference you make.

Usually we talk about a difference in shade, indicating that it is a slight difference.

You propose examples of difference that are not distinction. Now the examples of distinction that are not difference are missing. Without that the examples are meaningless.

I'm afraid you don't know exactly what you are talking about with the difference between distinction and difference.

There are no true or false definitions. There are useful or confusing definitions. I have just shown that your definitions are confusing.

I think it would be easier for your to admit I am right, but that takes an ego hurdle, I admit. — god must be atheist

Don't try to psychoanalyse me. It's not your thing. Give me answers to my objections and we'll continue.

I gave you a reason to distinguish what exists outside and inside the head (mind). Not convinced? Why not? This is the question.

What do you mean there is no difference? Close your eyes and paint the house red. You can do it. Open your eyes and paint the house you are seeing green in red. You can't. — David Mo

Not convinced? Why not? This is the question.

I honestly seek forgiveness from you and extend an apology for the little psychoanalysis I have attempted. This was uncalled for on my part, and I apologize, please forgive me that.

Keeping an eye on trying not to repeat the mistake of psychoanalizing you, which I am obviously not qualified to do, and even if I were, it would be out of place; I will say this much: your not seeing the house example as your moving the goal posts, and your not seeing the difference between "difference" and "distinction", is not explained by your most recent objections why you should not see them.

I have explained my objections, and your above most recent demand for more explanations, supported by repeated, and not new objections, which objections I have disarmed with my explnations, and which contain no new information to which I need to respond, since my response would be the same as before, since your objections are not new but repeated old objections.

This could conceivably go on forever: I would need to constantly repeat my objections to your objections, and you would yet again repeat the same objections, without any new information contained in your objections.

Now here's a bit of a psychoanalysis, and please forgive me, because I will mention a feature of your mind, only one feature, without the mentioning of it I can't make my point:

I learned by reading your posts that you are one of the smartest original thinkers on this board, with keen insight, and with a sharp mind.

Psychoanalysis ended. This above sentence is not a false compliment to disarm you or to cajole you into weakness. You would be too smart for that, anyway. This was my true opinion, without any peppering with false adoration due to ulterior motives. This opinion stands, for the future as much as for the past and present. Even if we don't come to an agreement on the issue of the difference between difference and distinction.

I can't reconcile why a person who thinks so well, can't see the point in my explanation and why they insist on the opposite of my opinion.

This I could explain only with further psychoanalysis, which I naturally refrain from doing here on the forum... it will stay a private opinion in my head, because opinions should be stated only on philosophical topics, not on the state of the mind of other users. You are right about that, and I hope you can forgive me the psychoanalysis inlcuded in this post.

I learned by reading your posts that you are one of the smartest original thinkers on this board, with keen insight, and with a sharp mind. — god must be atheist

Gee, that sounds like irony or hyperbole to me.

The thing is simpler than everything you write. You gave a number of examples of things that are not "distinct ". But the thing is not complete if you do not give a number of examples of things that are "distinct" now.

As far as I know, there is a small difference between 'difference' and "distinction". Distinction is a sub-class of difference: it is the difference between things that are similar in other respects. For example: there is a difference in intensity between crimson red and scarlet red but they are similar red variables. They are distinct. But they are still different.

Coming back to our discussion, the difference between illusion and reality is not a simple distinction. They are contradictory concepts. Two things that contradict each other do not have a simple difference of hue.