...yet if we remoulded the broken drinking glass to remake the glass, we would identify it as a new glass. — Metaphysician Undercover

Who is this "we"? I reckon that there are a significant number of people who would not identify it as a new glass, but as the old glass remoulded.

Well I can't help you answer this question, after studying Kripke it appeared resolved to me. I agree it is an important issue to consider. — ernestm

Has something made you change your mind since then? If so, what? If not, surely you can help by explaining how you think it's resolved by Kripke.

Rigid and non-rigid designators, presumably. Though what's most significant to me, is that he argues that the former are a priori, and necessary. That rigid designators designate the precise same things "in all possible worlds", whereas the latter is descriptive rather than non-discript proper names, so is a posteriori.

I'm sure that it makes sense to him. I don't know why the designation "dog" doesn't refer to cats in another possible universe. I mean, the same names refer to all kinds of very different things in this universe...

Well, I think now that different people, who have reached different points of evolution in their thought, have their own views, and it's rarely helpful to debate which is right and wrong, or to advocate one view over another. Kripke's view has a basic description in Wikipedia which is very straightforward and should not require further explanation.

Rigid and non-rigid designators, presumably. Though what's most significant to me, is that he argues that the former are a priori, and necessary. That rigid designators designate the precise same things "in all possible worlds", whereas the latter is descriptive rather than non-discript proper names, so is a posteriori.

I'm sure that it makes sense to him. I don't know why the designation "dog" doesn't refer to cats in another possible universe. I mean, the same names refer to all kinds of very different things in this universe... — Wosret

Well, I think now that different people, who have reached different points of evolution in their thought, have their own views, and it's rarely helpful to debate which is right and wrong, or to advocate one view over another. Kripke's view has a basic description in Wikipedia which is very straightforward and should not require further explanation. — ernestm

The Wikipedia article on Kripke says that it is proper names that he claims to be rigid designators, and "dog" isn't a proper name. But "Nixon", for example, is a proper name, and I still don't see why that couldn't refer to anyone - or even anything - else. Although I don't know his argument.

But if he's wrong, he's wrong. Why hold back? He himself doesn't seem to do so. He seems to think that Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein and Searle got it wrong.

Well, his notion of "rigid designator" is actually an unhelpful tautology, meaning the thing he's trying to suggest.

He contrasts rigid designators with non-rigid ones, which he gives as descriptions, and not names at all. "Dog" is not a description.

Not like I know much about him, just read a couple articles about it, nothing significant.

The object is the sum of its parts, yes? So if the object is destroyed or annihilated, then by implication, so are the parts. — Chief Owl Sapientia

You can't reduce something to nothing, I believe that's impossible. By your logic there is no such thing as annihilation, because you say it's not annihilated if there are still parts left. I don't agree with your definition of annihilation.

But you also refer to the object, and there is nothing in the object itself which makes it a drinking glass. So it seems that your attachment to your conceptualisation of the object as a tool is getting in the way of talking about the object itself. — Chief Owl Sapientia

No. it's not my conceptualization of the object as a tool, which is the issue here, it is just my conception of "an object". I believe that when an object is broken up into bits, it no longer exists. So it could be a rock, or any other thing which is broken up. I would say that when it is broken up it no longer exists. What exists is some new objects, the pieces.

So, are we talking about the drinking glass or the object? If the former, then yes, the drinking glass has ceased to be. But what about the object? — Chief Owl Sapientia

Obviously, the drinking glass is the object. That's what's named, and that's what we're talking about, the drinking glass. What did you have in mind as the object, a thing which hasn't been named yet? Why would we be talking about an object which hasn't been named yet, unless we were playing some sort of game? Are you trying to play a game? "Drinking glass" refers to an object, and that object is the drinking class. If you are thinking that the object is something other than the drinking glass, then it probably has another name, and we would be calling it by that other name rather than "drinking glass".

The answer to this earlier question of yours would be that it hasn't been completely annihilated and it has all the same parts, and they are the criteria being used to conclude that it is the same object. — Chief Owl Sapientia

I can see that in TheMadFool's example given to me, the ship was taken apart with the intent of rebuilding it, so I assume the parts were labeled and everything was put back the way that it was, so we might be justified in calling it the same ship. But in the instance of the drinking glass, there are just bits of glass, which are remolded into a new drinking glass. Why would you assume that it is the same drinking glass?

The glass that is smashed into pieces and then rebuilt from those pieces is an example of something being dissembled and reassembled. — Chief Owl Sapientia

No it's not such an example, because when we disassemble and reassemble, we remember where the parts go, and put them back in the same place.

Well I disagree on that. The idea of 'dubbing' as an act of naming is extensible to naming many objects besides the assignment of proper names. I think the interesting issue is whether the same method could apply to abstractions, and it is too new an idea for anyone to have explored that properly.

That is to say, it is one of the few topics which really remains fruitful in this field.

Excuse the multiple posts, but also I think there is a fundamental myopism reflected in the topic title itself. Semantics tends to concern itself purely with the descriptive. Moreover, it is well known that this is probably the most boring aspect of communication, hence the many jokes of how boring a husband finds the answer when he states 'how was your day.'

There is also a pervasive myopism in considering there is only one mechanism at work. In some cases it is important to identify the ship as Theseus' but in the majority of communications about it, it is simply 'the ship' which is under discussion. So there could be Wittgensteinian and descriptive and causal theories ALL operating simultaneously, and in different situations, one or more of them provide meaning in different ways.

You can't reduce something to nothing, I believe that's impossible. By your logic there is no such thing as annihilation, because you say it's not annihilated if there are still parts left. I don't agree with your definition of annihilation. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why not? That's what it means. Complete destruction or obliteration. To destroy something completely so that nothing is left. Destruction is the action or process of causing so much damage to something that it no longer exists or cannot be repaired. These are dictionary definitions. It would be odd if you were to reject this meaning just because it conflicts with some metaphysical notion you have. That would be some kind of backwards logic, like an ad hoc rationalisation.

No. It's not my conceptualisation of the object as a tool which is the issue here, it is just my conception of "an object". — Metaphysician Undercover

No, both are problems, since you think of the object as the tool, which makes sense in an ordinary context, but falls apart under scrutiny.

I believe that when an object is broken up into bits, it no longer exists. So it could be a rock, or any other thing which is broken up. I would say that when it is broken up it no longer exists. What exists is some new objects, the pieces. — Metaphysician Undercover

You haven't told me why yet, and that's what I want to know. I could come up with an answer myself, and I suggested one already, but you rejected it.

What do you think makes that so? Why new? Why objects? These objects were part of the previous structure, so what makes them new, and what made them one (before you acknowledge them as many)?

Obviously, the drinking glass is the object. That's what's named, and that's what we're talking about, the drinking glass. What did you have in mind as the object, a thing which hasn't been named yet? Why would we be talking about an object which hasn't been named yet, unless we were playing some sort of game? Are you trying to play a game? "Drinking glass" refers to an object, and that object is the drinking class. If you are thinking that the object is something other than the drinking glass, then it probably has another name, and we would be calling it by that other name rather than "drinking glass". — Metaphysician Undercover

My goodness. Where to start? It's like you're trying to attack me with a barrage of questionable assumptions and loaded rhetorical questions. You're getting ahead of yourself. I guess I'll start from the beginning, and address each one in order:

1. That's not obvious in the context of a philosophical discussion about identity which attempts a deeper examination of these kind of assumptions.

2. In the context of our discussion, that is just what you've named it, and I have already made clear my objection to this assumed equivalence of yours. So, no, that is not what we are talking about, it is what you are talking about, and by doing so, you are talking past me, and missing the point.

3. I had in mind the object. My objection, as I thought I had made clear, was not so much the glass part, but that you are naming it a drinking glass, which brings with it the baggage of functionality, which, as I said, is not inherent in the object itself. By the object, I mean the object, and nothing else: not your conception of it as a tool, and not how you relate to it as such.

4 & 5. You could simply call it a glass, and that might just resolve the issue that I've explained to you. We don't have to talk about a nameless object and I'm not trying to play a game, I'm just trying to do a bit of philosophy here.

6. Drinking is not part of the object. I don't know why you apparently aren't getting this. You haven't really addressed what I've said about this. If you disagree, then you should explain why. Simply asserting that the object is the drinking glass doesn't explain why you think that, it doesn't clarify much, and it doesn't explain why you think that my criticism of that claim is wrong.

7. Apparently you haven't noticed, but I have not been consistently calling it that, and have purposefully avoided doing so. I'll call it that when that is what it is, and when I have good reason to do so. That's fine if you want to go no further than this ordinary practical assumption, and do not want a deeper philosophical examination, but that'd just be sticking your head in the sand. I am trying to talk about the object itself, which is distinguishable from the purpose you see in it. If dropping the name "drinking glass" will get you to do that, then let's drop that name, shall we?

I can see that in TheMadFool's example given to me, the ship was taken apart with the intent of rebuilding it, so I assume the parts were labeled and everything was put back the way that it was, so we might be justified in calling it the same ship. But in the instance of the drinking glass, there are just bits of glass, which are remolded into a new drinking glass. Why would you assume that it is the same drinking glass? — Metaphysician Undercover

Why would you assume that it's a new one? Don't answer that. There's actually little point in arguing over this. I can see it from both points of view. I'm just saying that that is one competing interpretation, and that both interpretations are understandable. They just make use of different criteria.

No it's not such an example, because when we disassemble and reassemble, we remember where the parts go, and put them back in the same place. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, that's not in the dictionary definition. That's something that you're reading into it. I acknowledge that the context may be unusual, but that doesn't mean that this terminology cannot rightly be applied in this context.

I don't know if identity can be said to be something fixed or absolute. — Wayfarer

So, if identity is not fixed why does our intuition inform us to the contrary? The words ''same'', ''identical'' are evidence that there's a sense of unchanging identity in our minds. Do you think this intuition is mistaken?

It is something that can be maintained, while still changing over time — Wayfarer

This is self-contradictory is it not? How can change maintain anything? I have a vague conception of what you want to get at but it's still unclear to me.

So, if identity is not fixed why does our intuition inform us to the contrary? The words ''same'', ''identical'' are evidence that there's a sense of unchanging identity in our minds. Do you think this intuition is mistaken? — TheMadFool

I don't think it's exactly mistaken, but reality is not as crisply delineated as are the laws of identity. That of course has been part of philosophy since Heraclitus' 'you can't step in the same river twice'.

As I said in the post you quoted from, the cells in the human body are constantly changing, but we retain our identity nevertheless. But in answer to the question: are you the same person you were when you were a child, you can't really either answer 'yes' or 'no'. You're not the same person, but you're also not a different person.

But in answer to the question: are you the same person you were when you were a child, you can't really either answer 'yes' or 'no'. You're not the same person, but you're also not a different person.

As I said in my last post, I think that you really can answer 'yes' or 'no' [i.e. to whether it is the same ship, or to whether you are the same person] but it completely depends on the context of the question. There is no correct answer outside of the context. It is the search for an "answer-outside-of-the-context" which leads to the paradox.

But isn't that the thing. If I asked you're family if you are the same person as you were as a child, they would immediately think and know that yes, literally, and obviously you are (especially if I asked one of your parents), so that the question must be asking at a "deeper" or "subtler" distinction, beyond the obvious, and literal.

Literally, of course you're the same person. You remember experiencing the life back then, no one figures you've been replaced by a duplicate by the martians or Chinese.

I also think that there is a sense in which that very first "you", that awakes around 5-7 remains some part of you forever. The "inner child". They have to be with you, because you were with them. You can recall what they felt like, exactly what it was like to be them. You have access to their "qualia".

To destroy something completely so that nothing is left. — Chief Owl Sapientia

I don't see anything like "so that nothing is left" in my dictionary definition. I think that's impossible and ridiculous, rendering "annihilation" a completely useless word, if I accept your definition of it. So I still disagree with your definition. I reject it because this definition isn't consistent with any definition I've read, and it refers to something I've never seen happen, nor heard of, and contradicts the laws of physics. So I think you're just making it up. And unless you can explain some special metaphysical us for it, why you're making up this definition and asking me to adhere to it, I don't see the point. Perhaps you are insisting on a metaphorical use of the word? What's the point?

What do you think makes that so? Why new? Why objects? These objects were part of the previous structure, so what makes them new, and what made them one (before you acknowledge them as many)? — Chief Owl Sapientia

Each piece exists separately and independently of the others, it has its own shape and form. It is an entity, a thing with distinct existence, an individual. Therefore I think each piece is an object. Prior to the original object being broken, these entities did not exist as such, therefore they were not objects. So I conclude that at the time of being broken they are produced as new objects.

3. I had in mind the object. My objection, as I thought I had made clear, was not so much the glass part, but that you are naming it a drinking glass, which brings with it the baggage of functionality, which, as I said, is not inherent in the object itself. quote]

I don't understand your resistance to functionality. The object was created, produced with a specific purpose, to drink from, that's why it's called a drinking glass. Of course the functionality is inherent within the object, that's why it was made. When an object is clearly made for a specific purpose, to divorce its functionality from its existence doesn't make sense. It's existence is dependent on its functionality. Without that purpose it would not have been made, and would not exist.
— Chief Owl Sapientia

By the object, I mean the object, and nothing else: not your conception of it as a tool, and not how you relate to it as such. — Chief Owl Sapientia

Right, the object is a drinking glass. Why do you keep insisting that the object is something other then this? It's been identified as a drinking glass. Why do you insist on being contrary, and identifying it as something else. That doesn't make sense, it's my example, I identified the object.

4 & 5. You could simply call it a glass, and that might just resolve the issue that I've explained to you. We don't have to talk about a nameless object and I'm not trying to play a game, I'm just trying to do a bit of philosophy here. — Chief Owl Sapientia

No, as I said, I wanted to avoid the ambiguity of calling it a "glass". That might refer to a looking glass, or any other form of glass. I've identified a very specific type of glass, but for some reason, you want to create ambiguity. I've intentionally tried to avoid this ambiguity. Why are you intentionally trying to create ambiguity. The only reason to intentionally create ambiguity in an argument is to facilitate equivocation. And then you suggest that creating such ambiguity might resolve the issue. That's nonsense. You are arguing that you cannot identify the object I named, but you are intentionally being obtuse, trying to create ambiguity, to justify your nonsense.

6. Drinking is not part of the object. I don't know why you apparently aren't getting this. You haven't really addressed what I've said about this. If you disagree, then you should explain why. Simply asserting that the object is the drinking glass doesn't explain why you think that, it doesn't clarify much, and it doesn't explain why you think that my criticism of that claim is wrong. — Chief Owl Sapientia

Of course drinking is not a part of the object. That's ridiculous. Just because it's a drinking glass, do you think that it should actually be drinking? See what I mean by your obtuseness. It's ridiculous. "Drinking" is part of the means for identifying the object. It's a glass made to drink from.

7. Apparently you haven't noticed, but I have not been consistently calling it that, and have purposefully avoided doing so. I'll call it that when that is what it is, and when I have good reason to do so. That's fine if you want to go no further than this ordinary practical assumption, and do not want a deeper philosophical examination, but that'd just be sticking your head in the sand. I am trying to talk about the object itself, which is distinguishable from the purpose you see in it. If dropping the name "drinking glass" will get you to do that, then let's drop that name, shall we? — Chief Owl Sapientia

It's my example, and that's what I called the object! Feel free to reject the example and claim that you don't know what I mean by a glass that's drinking, or some other nonsense. But it's nonsense for you to say "I'll call it that when that is what it is". That is what it is! It's been stipulated as part of the example. If you can't understand what a drinking glass is, then fine, we'll move on. But I think your actions are intentionally obtuse.

How can we talk about the "object itself" by dropping the name. If we drop the name, we won't have any idea of which object we are talking about. We have to name the object so that we can talk about it. As I said, we could name another object, and particular rock or something, and have the same discussion. When the rock is obliterated into whatever elements we want to extract from it, it no longer exists as an object. What exists are the new objects which were derived from it.

No, that's not in the dictionary definition. That's something that you're reading into it. I acknowledge that the context may be unusual, but that doesn't mean that this terminology cannot rightly be applied in this context. — Chief Owl Sapientia

Are you saying that to "reassemble" something does not require putting the parts back in the same place?

I don't see anything like "so that nothing is left" in my dictionary definition. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's part of the very first definition that comes up if you google "destruction", but whatever.

I think that's impossible and ridiculous, rendering "annihilation" a completely useless word, if I accept your definition of it. So I still disagree with your definition. I reject it because this definition isn't consistent with any definition I've read, and it refers to something I've never seen happen, nor heard of, and contradicts the laws of physics. So I think you're just making it up. — Metaphysician Undercover

Don't be ridiculous. See for yourself if don't believe me. That was just one definition, and not one that I invented. There are plenty of others which define the meaning of the verb "destroy" as to put out of existence, and other similarly worded definitions. The concept and meaning of destruction and annihilation existed long before our discovery of the laws of physics that you're referring to, and annihilation has a meaning in physics which is different to the ordinary meaning.

And unless you can explain some special metaphysical us for it, why you're making up this definition and asking me to adhere to it, I don't see the point. Perhaps you are insisting on a metaphorical use of the word? What's the point? — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you know what? I'm not even going to read any further. Your accusation that I am making this up is too stupid and uncharitable for me to want to continue.

That's part of the very first definition that comes up if you google "destruction", but whatever. — Chief Owl Sapientia

What's the point in lying? I thought we were doing philosophy. What comes up from google is this: "the action or process of causing so much damage to something that it no longer exists or cannot be repaired." There is no mention of "so that nothing is left", not even bits and pieces.

There are plenty of others which define the meaning of the verb "destroy" as to put out of existence, and other similarly worded definitions. — Chief Owl Sapientia

That's exactly what happens when the drinking glass breaks, it no longer exists. It is put out of existence. What exists is a bunch of bits and pieces of glass. You do not want to accept that it ceases existing unless there are not even any bits or pieces left, but that's ridiculous. As soon as the drinking glass breaks into pieces, it is no longer a drinking glass, it does not exist.

Do you know what? I'm not even going to read any further. Your accusation that I am making this up is too stupid and uncharitable for me to want to continue. — Chief Owl Sapientia

Good, now I won't have to read your blatant lies.

You are making an assumption that such a thing as 'the drinking class' actually had any objective existence at all. I don't see why you need to be so insulting.

You are making an assumption that such a thing as 'the drinking class' actually had any objective existence at all. — ernestm

Yeah I know, it's all assumptions, that's where we started in this conversation in the first place. That a thing has a continuous existence in time, is just assumed, and what constitutes this continued existence is a matter of convention, like the conventions of language. I said it's a matter of agreeing on conventions, and Sapientia asked me if it were possible that we could agree on such conventions.

I don't see why you need to be so insulting. — ernestm

I look at the insult as coming from the other way. Sapientia continually rejected my proposals, of reasonable definitions, and in an insulting way suggested that we define "annihilate" as reducing to nothing in an absolute way, without any bits or pieces remaining, then justifying this nonsense suggestion with a blatant lie. Also, there was the nonsense suggestion that we should talk about an object without naming or identifying that object in any way. Both of these nonsense suggestions, if they are supposed to be real proposals, are an insult to my intelligence.

It seems to me there is a muddling of two things. First, there is the reference to which 'Theseus' ship' points, if indeed reference is the mechanism of semantic association. Second, there is the larger issue of whether abstractions exist independent of the material world. Inevitably, in extended debate, the discussion falls to the latter underlying problem, even if the issue of which ship belongs to Theseus is trivially determinable.

For the record, I would like to correct a minor accidental error in my previous post. I looked up a number of online definitions for several related terms. One of them was "destruction" and another one was "annihilation". In my previous post, what I referred to as being part of a definition that I'd found for "destruction" was actually part of a definition that I'd found for "annihilation".

The two words that I entered into the google search were "annihilation" and "meaning". And this is the result:





If anyone reading this would prefer to uncharitably maintain that I am lying, then so be it. But I won't dignify that with a response. That's the kind of thing that would make me stop reading, stop engaging with that person, and go and look for something more worthy of my time.

I don't see why you need to be so insulting. — ernestm

I know, right? It was unnecessary, uncalled for, and ruined what might have otherwise been a productive discussion. And coming up with a lame excuse won't change that.

Oh well, if he's going to be like that, then perhaps it's for the best that the discussion has been cut short.

Right. That's that. I'll say no more on the matter. Time to move on.

It was unnecessary, uncalled for, and ruined what might have otherwise been a productive discussion. — Chief Owl Sapientia

Actually I think it was quite evident that we were beyond the possibility of a productive discussion. We were nowhere near agreement on the meaning of words like annihilate. And we couldn't even agree that there is a relationship between the name of the object and the named object. I think it was demonstrated that in the context of that discussion, words are useless. But I suppose this might be just another example of us disagreeing.