>>2 I have forgotten to specify that the "convincingness" I speak of is not the "dictionary form", I also did not intend (meta warning) to be convincing in my monologue on convincingness.
That being said I believe that the "to whom" which is sub-intended in the text is quite obvious, that "whom" is the other in the most general sense, and for "what purpose" that is also discussed in the section where I mention the "tellos" of discourse, this is to say, for no purpose other to be "convincing" (in this fuzzy, general sense of the word).
In philosophical terms I do not believe that a object of conviction (might its form be prepositional or otherwise) is necessary for the act of "convincingness" to "act" in the most general sense of the word.
to convince anyone you first need their attention sure, but they aren't the same
This has been answered in the following passage:
However that effort is not _sufficient_ condition of convincingness, merely _necessary_ condition for such a thing.
I have forgotten to specify that the "convincingness" I speak of is not the "dictionary form", I also did not intend (meta warning) to be convincing in my monologue on convincingness.
That being said I believe that the "to whom" which is sub-intended in the text is quite obvious, that "whom" is the other in the most general sense, and for "what purpose" that is also discussed in the section where I mention the "tellos" of discourse, this is to say, for no purpose other to be "convincing" (in this fuzzy, general sense of the word).
In philosophical terms I do not believe that a object of conviction (might its form be prepositional or otherwise) is necessary for the act of "convincingness" to "act" in the most general sense of the word.
This has been answered in the following passage:
Thank you for the reply!