...yet if we remoulded the broken drinking glass to remake the glass, we would identify it as a new glass. — Metaphysician Undercover
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
I don't know if identity can be said to be something fixed or absolute. — Wayfarer
It is something that can be maintained, while still changing over time — 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? — TheMadFool
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 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.
To destroy something completely so that nothing is left. — Chief Owl Sapientia
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
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
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
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
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
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
I don't see anything like "so that nothing is left" in my dictionary definition. — Metaphysician Undercover
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
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
That's part of the very first definition that comes up if you google "destruction", but whatever. — Chief Owl Sapientia
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
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
You are making an assumption that such a thing as 'the drinking class' actually had any objective existence at all. — ernestm
I don't see why you need to be so insulting. — ernestm
I don't see why you need to be so insulting. — ernestm
It was unnecessary, uncalled for, and ruined what might have otherwise been a productive discussion. — Chief Owl Sapientia
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.