The philosophy of words

[Sign Related]

First read these two definitions on philosophy:

2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.

Now see if you know what this means below:

The FBI has caught the man suspected in the murder of so-n-so. The suspect, being honest, says, infront of the FBI agents: I had gone to kill so-no-so. I had gone to have so-n-so killed.

^^^Did that mean he confessed that he killed so-n-so, based on that statement of his made? Or did he not mean he killed so-n-so at all, based on that statement of his made?

[Professor Jumbo]

The first statement, "I had gone to kill so-n-so" is understandable of course, but we need to know the question that it was a response to. The same goes for the second statement "I had gone to have so-n-so killed". But the second statement is a bit ambiguous, it needs clearing up.

However, to take this as it is neither statement is an admission of guilt, taken together they are still not an admission of guilt. In all cases (assuming that my interpretation of the second statement is correct) all that we have is admission of intent. Intent by itself can never equal guilt. The suspect in question may have actually comitted the murder, howver from those two statements alone all that we can establish intent, we can determine neitherr guilt nor innocence.

But really we do need the original questions as they could make a very important difference.

[Hikaru Zero]

"I had gone to kill so-n-so/have so-n-so killed" is not necessarily a confession, though it very likely is. He *could* have gone to kill him or gone to have him killed, and then failed or realized that he didn't want to (for whatever reason), and ended up either being attempted homicide or nothing but anger.

[I'minmyunderwear]

i had gone to kill him and i had gone to have him killed are two completely different statements that can only be reconciled if you loosened your definitions of to kill and to have killed. i'd say he's guilty because he initially said that he went to kill him and then changed his story, but he never confessed by any means

[I'minmyunderwear]

by the way, i don't really see what the definitions of philosophy had to do with anything in this situation