Quotessence
Home / Quotes / Quote by Mark Forsyth

Quote by Mark Forsyth

“The standard modern measurement for inebriation is the Ose system. This has been considerably developed over the years, but the common medical consensus currently has jocose, verbose, morose, bellicose, lachrymose, comatose, adios. This is a workable but incomplete system, as it fails to take in otiose (meaning impractical) which comes just after jocose. Nor does it have grandiose preceding bellicose. And how they managed to miss out globose (amorphous or formless) before comatose is beyond me.”

Quote by Mark Forsyth

Book:The Horologicon: A Day's Jaunt Through the Lost Words of the English Language
Create image

Work

The Horologicon: A Day's Jaunt Through the Lost Words of the English Language

This book is a meticulous journey through the English language, uncovering the history and usage of words that have fallen out of common use. Each chapter corresponds to an hour of the day, providing a unique perspective on the evolution of language over time. more

Author

Mark Forsyth
Mark Forsyth

Mark Forsyth, born in 1977, is a renowned British writer whose works span across various fields, including language, humor, and literary criticism. He is known for his unique sense of humor and profound insights into language. more

You May Also Like

“As I explain in 'What It Means to be an Anarcho-Capitalist', to be an anarchist simply means you oppose aggression, and you realize the state necessarily commits aggression. If you are not an anarchist, it means you either condone aggression, or think the state does not necessarily commit aggression. As you say you are not an anarchist, can you please tell us which one describes you? Are you in favor of aggression (like socialists and criminals are)? Or, do you think the state does not commit aggression (like children brainwashed by government schools think)?”

FreedomLibertyLibertarianAnarchyStatismNon Aggression PrincipleAncapAnarcho CapitalismNap
Author:N. Stephan Kinsella
Create image

“So what? Why should an a priori proof of the libertarian property theory make any difference? Why not engage in aggression anyway?” Why indeed?! But then, why should the proof that 1+1=2 make any difference? One certainly can still act on the belief that 1+1=3. The obvious answer is “because a propositional justification exists for doing one thing, but not for doing another.” But why should we be reasonable, is the next come-back. Again, the answer is obvious. For one, because it would be impossible to argue against it; and further, because the proponent raising this question would already affirm the use of reason in his act of questioning it. This still might not suffice and everyone knows that it would not, for even if the libertarian ethic and argumentative reasoning must be regarded as ultimately justified, this still does not preclude that people will act on the basis of unjustified beliefs either because they don’t know, they don’t care, or they prefer not to know. I fail to see why this should be surprising or make the proof somehow defective.”

PhilosophyFreedomLibertyLibertarianAnarchyRationalityCritical ThinkingStatismVoluntaryismNon Aggression PrincipleAncapAnarcho CapitalismNap
Book:The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy
Create image

“Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. Their arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to "but anarchy won’t work" or "we need the (things provided by the) state." But these attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor that you predict it will or "can" be achieved. It is possible to be a pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It’s quite simple, really. It’s an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians. Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression.”

AnarchyAnarchismNapAgressionMinarchism
Author:N. Stephan Kinsella
Create image