The trouble is that we don't know what a 'non-trivial intrinsic similarity' is. You have given examples of similarities that you regard as not being that, but examples do not a definition make. There are countless similarities between any two nouns and it is entirely a matter of personal opinion as to whether they are intrinsic or trivial.can anyone here think of any non-trivial intrinsic similarity between these two things? — Troodon Roar
To make sense of the question you'd need to get a lot more precise about what you mean by property.In other words, even if we can’t imagine what it would be like, is an object that has nothing except logically-necessary or negative properties in common with, say, the Eiffel Tower, logically possible? — Troodon Roar
Is the very notion of there being two things that have nothing in common except for universal, logically-necessary properties that any two things necessarily have, such as self-identity, being a thing, etc. and negative properties (such as both having the property of not being some other third thing) even logically possible? — Troodon Roar
↪coolguy8472 What is the trivial property you have in mind, simply the word 'thing'?
My argument is that any concept that we think is also a contrast, an edge. A line implies that which it emerges out of, the background. Something is only something because it has an edge, a contrast, a boundary. It also emerges out of something else. The word 'nothing' would be incoherent if it didn't also imply a contrast, edge, boundary. Nothing can only be nothing because it emerges from something prior to it. It is a negation of a prior something. 'Nothing' intrinsically depends for its very meaning on 'something'. Its like darkness and light. Each means what it does only by comparison to its other. — Joshs
I have been trying to find an example of two things that share no properties and have no similarities with each other, and are completely different from each other. Now, I am aware that there are trivial properties that any thing will have (properties such as self-identity, being a thing, etc.), and also, if three or more things exist, which is obviously the case, then any two things, no matter how different, will share the property of both not being some other third thing. (For example, my leg hair and the Andromeda galaxy both share the property of not being Abraham Lincoln). I don’t count those kinds of properties, as they are inevitably there, and they are so trivial thay many may not even consider them to be properties. I mean significant, noteworthy, non-trivial properties (for example: being blue, being a living organism, being large or small, being square-shaped, etc., etc.). — Troodon Roar
. Or being a visual phenomenon.I mean significant, noteworthy, non-trivial properties (for example: being blue, being a living organism, being large or small, being square-shaped, etc., etc.). — Troodon Roar
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.