Can a character be both a "concept of A" and A itself?

[ThienDe01]

This character is a concept of fire (with all the attributes that make this concept a concept type 1), but later in the story it is stated that he is the fire itself. So is this an "anti-feat" to his AE1 concept?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

No, i don’t believe that is an anti-feat. If they follow the requirements for any of the three types of concepts, then they are concepts.

Post in thread 'Conceptual Manipulation: Adding a definition'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/conceptual-manipulation-adding-a-definition.181607/post-7188919

 

[Vietthai96]

Yes, since Concept of A is what made, define A, so literally, if you are concept of A, then you are also A itself

 

[ThienDe01]

No, i don’t believe that is an anti-feat. If they follow the requirements for any of the three types of concepts, then they are concepts.

Post in thread 'Conceptual Manipulation: Adding a definition'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/conceptual-manipulation-adding-a-definition.181607/post-7188919

Yes, since Concept of A is what made, define A, so literally, if you are concept of A, then you are also A itself

But I think there will be a problem:
Normally, when all the flames are destroyed into nothingness, the concept of fire will still exist.
But if the concept of fire = fire. When all the flames become nothingness, the concept of fire still does not disappear, even though he is also fire - which should have disappeared along with the other flames.
So is this an "anti-feat"?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

But I think there will be a problem:
Normally, when all the flames are destroyed into nothingness, the concept of fire will still exist.
But if the concept of fire = fire. When all the flames become nothingness, the concept of fire still does not disappear, even though he is also fire - which should have disappeared along with the other flames.
So is this an "anti-feat"?

Then that means he is Type 3 concept. But it may be an antifeat yes. It can't be type 1 or 2.

 

[Lycoris4812]

This character is a concept of fire (with all the attributes that make this concept a concept type 1), but later in the story it is stated that he is the fire itself. So is this an "anti-feat" to his AE1 concept?

No.

But I think there will be a problem:
Normally, when all the flames are destroyed into nothingness, the concept of fire will still exist.
But if the concept of fire = fire. When all the flames become nothingness, the concept of fire still does not disappear, even though he is also fire - which should have disappeared along with the other flames.
So is this an "anti-feat"?

If he is a concept that is destroyed when all of fire in existence is, then that is an anti-feat for type1 concepts.

 

[ThienDe01]

Then that means he is Type 3 concept. But it may be an antifeat yes. It can't be type 1 or 2.

I remember this being at least type 2.

If he is a concept that is destroyed when all of fire in existence is, then that is an anti-feat for type1 concepts.

In this case he (the concept of fire) is not destroyed when all the fire disappears.
What I wonder is that when he = concept of fire = fire, he still exists when all the fire has disappeared, even though he is fire - which should have disappeared

 

[Vietthai96]

at this point, we need to determine based on feats present in the verse, because if it is just a statement of character X is the concept of A and being A itself, then it isn't the problem

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I remember this being at least type 2.

It couldn't be type 2 because the character would be able to come back because fire still exists. Type 2 concepts can only be truly destroyed if the thing they give form to (fire in this case) is completely destroyed across reality.

 

[ThienDe01]

It couldn't be type 2 because the character would be able to come back because fire still exists.

The context says that the fire has completely disappeared, what remains is A (both the concept of fire and fire)

 

[Lycoris4812]

In this case he (the concept of fire) is not destroyed when all the fire disappears.

This would make him a type 1 concept.

What I wonder is that when he = concept of fire = fire, he still exists when all the fire has disappeared, even though he is fire - which should have disappeared

You're confusing a concept with its particulars. Fire is just a lesser version of the concept of fire. Fire is not the concept of fire.

 

[ThienDe01]

You're confusing a concept with its particulars. Fire is just a lesser version of the concept of fire. Fire is not the concept of fire.

Unknown, after breaking free from the seal. He declared himself to be fire and a planet was burned down upon contact with him.

 

[Lycoris4812]

Unknown, after breaking free from the seal. He declared himself to be fire and a planet was burned down upon contact with him.

Doesn't mean he's literally the particular.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

The context says that the fire has completely disappeared, what remains is A (both the concept of fire and fire)

Then that would be type 1. He is independent from the form being destroyed.