@john27

Well, Stilbon the philosopher was a flesh-and-blood man, just like you and me, John. There are many other similar examples from the past of men and women who accomplished surpassingly great deeds of virtue. Many modern critics of the past argue that these old stories are concocted or at least exaggerated—but we can find modern examples that are irrefutable, like the guy who threw himself under a subway train to protect an anonymous woman who had fallen on the tracks. But you ask,

How could I go about grounding this idea? How can I make this applicable to my average self? — john27

And I would say in response that “grounding” such ideas goes contrary to their force: they want to raise us up above the common ground we live on so that we soar to the heaven of human potentiality. I also feel the need to ask you: do you want to remain “average”? Are you happy being mediocre? Maybe you are, but philosophy is not a mediocre discipline...

...nevertheless, though almost all of us are incapable of displaying the constancy of Stilbon, yet, steeped in his example, we can apply his principle to our mediocre lives with modest success: we may not lose our family and property and fatherland in one fell swoop, but we could lose our job, or our “nest egg”, or our spouse, or become debilitated in one of our limbs, etc. Just think how many have become homicidal/suicidal after being fired from their jobs or after being served with divorce papers; think how many threw themselves out of high windows when the market crashed and they lost everything they had invested in!...

...in fine, let me ask you: should we judge something by its common ordinary examples, or by its rare and extraordinary ones?

I also feel the need to ask you: do you want to remain “average”? Are you happy being mediocre? Maybe you are, but philosophy is not a mediocre discipline... — Leghorn

I would have to confess that yes, I am terribly infatuated with mediocrity. It has consumed me, by a large margin.

...in fine, let me ask you: should we judge something by its common ordinary examples, or by its rare and extraordinary ones? — Leghorn

In my opinion (partly due to my mediocre position), we should undoubtedly perceive something on its average, rather than its substantial outliers.

In my opinion (partly due to my mediocre position), we should undoubtedly perceive something on its average, rather than its substantial outliers. — john27

So if we wanted to understand falling bodies, for example, we should take a bunch of representative examples of common everyday things, maybe different kinds of balls: a tennis ball, ping pong ball and bowling ball for example; and maybe a piece of lead or steel, and a piece of wood or foam, etc, and drop them from different heights and record the time it takes for them to hit the ground, then take the average and try to understand free-fall from an analysis of that?

No, because that would be a comparison of extremities. A comparison of averages would be taking 50-55cm in width rocks, that are all made up of the same thing. There can be no stellar example, neither a series of stellar examples, if one wishes to use the average as a measurement.

Edit: One can use stellar examples, but must use them on average.

A comparison of averages would be taking 50-55cm in width rocks, that are all made up of the same thing. — john27

Rocks? Why rocks? Are they the average material that things are made of? Why not foam or feathers? Are they not equally representative of falling bodies?...I myself have seen more feathers fall from the sky than rocks! Why not then drop different sorts of feathers rather than rocks and take measurements?—maybe from a blue jay and a robin and a chickadee; and a crow and a buzzard and a hawk. They’re probably about the same size and weight...roughly.

In my opinion to be average is to be similar. You could use any material you would like, so long as the material is relevant to its other examples. If it is not, then in my belief it would simply not be average.

@john27

So it wouldn’t matter whether we dropped rocks or feathers? as long as what we dropped was of similar material?

That is in part correct. In fact, had you only performed the free fall experiment with only one set of average material, that experiment would then itself become unique and therefore not pertain to an average. Then, in order to move it back into an assessment of the average, you would have to extract its similarities and apply this to another average set. Do that for some time and eventually you would finally have a true average.

@john27

So if I’m understanding you John, first we drop feathers of different sorts, measure velocities and calculate accelerations and come up with an average for feathers; then we drop rocks of different kinds, measure velocities and calculate accelerations, and come up with an average for rocks; then we repeat this with other sorts of bodies: maybe snowflakes and steel ball-bearings, etc., then take the average of all these averages and proclaim this to be the “true average”—is that what you are saying?

Basically. Although in this case the average of similarities between the averages wouldn't be velocity and acceleration, those are much too personal. Instead, the similarities would be gravitational acceleration, weight, and your finalized "true average" would be a formula to calculate the free fall. The final average would be something that ties all of its subjects together, a unifying similarity. That is what it is to be average after all. A solution that works for most of its subjects.

@john27

How are velocity and acceleration “much too personal”??

Because they are reliant on the individual, and therefore not similar to other averages.

However, you are not wrong. It would be not a true average had we not incorporated any extremity at all. Therefore, velocity and acceleration would be included into the calculation of the true average, but only on an individualistic level. It would be mainly to adhere to the average differences there are between objects.

@john27

Isn’t it true that a rock or steel ball-bearing or lead weight dropped at the same moment as any feather would hit the ground before the feather did?

Yes that is true.

Yes that is true.

@john27

And which of these: the rock or ball-bearing or lead-weight, or rather the feather, do you think conforms most closely to the accepted formula of falling bodies?—that a falling body falls to the earth at the rate of 9.8 meters/second squared?

They both conform to the principle equally.

They both conform to the principle equally. — john27

If that were true, the rock and feather would both hit the ground at the same time after being dropped at the same moment from the same height, wouldn’t they?

In a vacuum, yes, they would hit the ground at the same time.

In a vacuum, yes, they would hit the ground at the same time. — john27

But we were talking about bodies falling through the air, weren’t we? That’s why you agreed earlier that a rock would hit the ground before a feather if both were dropped from the same height at the same time:

Isn’t it true that a rock or steel ball-bearing or lead weight dropped at the same moment as any feather would hit the ground before the feather did? — Leghorn

Yes that is true. — john27

And isn’t this true because the force of the drag of the air on the feather quickly becomes equal to the force of the gravitational pull on it, whereas the drag on the rock takes much longer to equal the pull of gravity on it?

And isn’t this true because the force of the drag of the air on the feather quickly becomes equal to the force of the gravitational pull on it, whereas the drag on the rock takes much longer to equal the pull of gravity on it? — Leghorn

Yes that is correct. However in my belief the implied question was whether they both conform/who conforms more to this true average, which they do equally:

And which of these: the rock or ball-bearing or lead-weight, or rather the feather, do you think conforms most closely to the accepted formula of falling bodies?—that a falling body falls to the earth at the rate of 9.8 meters/second squared? — Leghorn

@john27

Isn’t it true, John, that if we were to investigate the laws that govern falling bodies, we would do better to observe the heavier ones and eschew the lighter ones, since the latter are more prone to the interference of the drag on them of the atmosphere?

Uh...I don't think so? Drag is an essential component to understanding free fall after all, I would think...

Uh...I don't think so? Drag is an essential component to understanding free fall after all, I would think... — john27

The mathematical equation for an object in free fall is: distance=1/2 of acceleration times time squared, isn’t it? If drag is an essential component to understanding free-fall, why is there no consideration of it in the equation?

Well in the even that we are studying free fall(something falling with no forces acting upon it except gravity) it would seem like you said that there is no need to apply drag, however free falling in a more layman, natural sense requires a broader holistic view of the subject, which I believe would incorporate drag and the such.

@john27

Do you see any similarity, John, between the different sorts of objects that fall through the atmosphere and the sorts of ppl that endure loss differently?

Do you see any similarity, John, between the different sorts of objects that fall through the atmosphere and the sorts of ppl that endure loss differently? — Leghorn

While there is a universal constant, In essence each object/person is individual?

I greatly appreciate the differences between how people endure loss.
But the loss is its own thing, a life, of a kind.

Refusing to admit defeat to someone demanding it is different than our struggles as persons with ourselves. The idea of withholding judgement of others comes down to this singularity. I cannot lift the stone, much less cast it.

While there is a universal constant, In essence each object/person is individual? — john27

Let me express it a bit more picturesquely...

...Some ppl feel they have lost their very selves when they lose their hair, or their money, or their job, or their aged parent, or their pinky finger, or their record collection, or their house or job or 25-week-old fetus, etc, etc. We might call them snowflakes or “light as a feather”, for the slightest loss throws them into the greatest turmoil...

...On the other hand, once in a great while we witness ppl like Stilbon, who lose everything short of their life, like Job did, yet continue on with the greatest equanimity, never feeling as though the loss of all their family or property or fatherland or sight and hearing, etc, detracted one iota from their identity. These ppl are like rock or lead or steel, and their fall conforms most closely to the “universal constant”.