How deep/close is the relationship between an object and its most fundamental building block?
Let's say X is an object and Y is its fundamental building block, where any part of X could be broken down entirely into Ys (but no further).
Does it make sense to say: "X is really just Y" ? — rachMiel
Does it make sense to say: "X is really just Y" ? — rachMiel
And this is kind of what I'm trying to get at. If X consists solely of Y, does it make sense to say X *is* Y?An apple would be a specific arrangement (or series of arrangements) of floom. It wouldn't be mere floom. — VagabondSpectre
Let's say you've got two blocks of pure Carrara marble. One is carved into an exquisite sculpture by a master artist. The other is left untouched.I'd say that objects are identical to all the properties that comprise them. So the answer to your question is an identity relationship: X is Y. But bear in mind that all of the Ys are non-identical (i.e. nominalism), and the way they interact with each other makes X what it is. — numberjohnny5
Let's say you've got two blocks of pure Carrara marble. One is carved into an exquisite sculpture by a master artist. The other is left untouched.
To what extent is it valid to say: They are simply different forms of marble. — rachMiel
Let's say you've got two blocks of pure Carrara marble. One is carved into an exquisite sculpture by a master artist. The other is left untouched.
To what extent is it valid to say: They are simply different forms of marble. — rachMiel
I think it's true that they are two different forms or pieces of marble. All existents/objects are different from one another. With regards to resemblance, existents/objects are always on a degree/spectrum between similarity and difference and never identity. — numberjohnny5
To what extent is it 'valid' to say: Their forms are different, but in essence they are both just marble. — rachMiel
And this is kind of what I'm trying to get at. If X consists solely of Y, does it make sense to say X *is* Y? — rachMiel
A diamond is carbon.
Michelangelo's David is marble.
A human being is quarks and leptons. — rachMiel
And this is kind of what I'm trying to get at. If X consists solely of Y, does it make sense to say X *is* Y?
— rachMiel
Nope. — VagabondSpectre
To what extent can one reduce the 'essence' of an object to that of its fundamental parts?
(To paraphrase a well-known metaphor:) Let's say you have three solid gold rings. One is an old family heirloom, handed down through five generations. One is a simple flat band sold by a jewelry chain store. One is a striking piece of wild ring art made by a local craftsman. — rachMiel
I was originally going to respond to each response, but that would be a little too OCD, even for me. — rachMiel
You are saying that X consists solely of Y and X is Y are nontrivially different. — rachMiel
I know you were not intending to, but I want to interject and say that OCD can be a serious psychological disorder ... — darthbarracuda
I'm saying that X consists of more than just Y, it consists of specific arrangements of Y. — VagabondSpectre
How deep/close is the relationship between an object and its most fundamental building block? — rachMiel
But every arrangement of Y consists solely of ... Y. No? — rachMiel
What is the essence of a marble statue?
1. Marble
2. Statue-ness
3. That which the statue depicts (bird in flight, mother and child, etc.)
To what extent is it valid to say, of *any* marble statue, that its essence is marble? — rachMiel
The question conceals an error. We do not know that there is any "fundamental building block(s)." — Dfpolis
So again, thinking about ontology in terms of 'essence' is not what 'reductionism' usually means. — Wayfarer
The question conceals an error. — Dfpolis
So again, thinking about ontology in terms of 'essence' is not what 'reductionism' usually means. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.