Do you have a horse in this race, mate? According to some Oossians, you need to have an intellectual horse in a philosophical discussion, in order to be able to have that discussion in a respectful way. It's a fallacy, of course, I'd call it "appeal to nonsense", but it already has a technical term in the literature.

EDIT: I could call it "Appeal to the Boy Scouts" and publish a paper on it. Hmmm...

It is truly a horrible painting. — Wayfarer

But that was the creative intent of Vincent Namatjira. He made her ugly on purpose. Why? Because she's ethically ugly, she has no moral values.

EDIT: Or think of it like this, Wayfarer: why would he paint her beautifully? As an Aboriginal Australian, he perceives her as an oppressor. Why would he glorify her?

Hey Bob, quick question. Why is it called an argument from composition, if God is simple?

Since it seems, according to some folks, that language is somehow more important than ontology, I claim the following.

The following music video is the Absolute, Ultimate Truth about the Ontology of Time:

It is what it is.

The significance of family resemblance just never sunk in, did it. — Banno

The Wittgensteinian notion of linguistic "family resemblance" is lumpen etymology.

↪Arcane Sandwich
I will read it some more. Kudos for you for a very carefully-composed essay. But the overall problem with analytical philosophy is its assumption of a one-dimensional ontology - that everything exists in the same way. — Wayfarer

That's a good point. Harman himself makes that point, he says that things exist in two ways: really, and sensually. And this occurs even in the inanimate world of rocks and crystals.

Preferably a flat surface — Wayfarer

Not a table, then. — Banno

I think that's not what Wayfarer intended to say. And even if he did, why would you assume that it's also my idea? I don't define tables that way. I don't need to, since essences aren't modally necessary, they're modally contingent. You said so yourself.

↪Arcane Sandwich
That also applies to your article. I see a problem with trying to maintain the notion of 'existence' as being univocal with respect to both the parts and the whole, meaning that the whole then becomes a separate, countable entity in addition to the parts that comprise it - in line with the above. The forms don't exist in the same sense as constituents. — Wayfarer

Thanks for the critique! No one had commented on that article yet, you're officially its First Critic. And I think that what you're saying has substance. Thank you very much. And no, I'm not being ironic now, I'm being sincere. I have a sense of Ethics. Perhaps not "sense" in the sense of the five senses, but in some other sense, a poetic one, if you will.

↪Arcane Sandwich
I'm sorry, I find that risible. — Banno

Humor is subjective.

There must be something that makes a table what it is, — Banno

Yes, its essence. Tableness, to be more precise.

and this we will call tableness, — Banno

:clap:

and we will generalise this to other stuff, — Banno

No, we don't. We discover (or invent, or stipulate, as you said so yourself) the essence of various sorts of things, both natural as well as artificial. It's a case-by-case approach, not a generalization from one case to the universe (of discourse, if, of anything).

and say that what makes something what it is is it's essence. — Banno

Exactly, tell it to the people that study the Spanish Essence in the context of Academia, for example.

Contrast that with the idea that we just choose to call some things tables, yet that there need be nothing they all have in common. What counts is that the word "table" is used. — Banno

But you said that they don't have essences, unless we stipulate it so. It follows from that, that if we do stipulate it, then they have essences. Is this what passes for Great Reasoning these days?

↪Banno

Are you guys slightly off topic? — frank

was Heidegger off-topic in Being and Time?

That's just calling the essence by another name. — Banno

No, because essence is a genus, and tableness is one of its species. There are other essences beside tableness. For example, chairness, treeness, dogness, humanness, Godness, etc.

You've said that the essence of table is that it is a table. — Banno

No, I didn't say that. I said that essence of a table is its tableness.

Wow. — Banno

Yeah, I have that effect on impressionable white Australians. I'm marvelous, as an intellectual. I'm majestic, you could say. You? You're more like the intellectual equivalent to Crocodile Dundee.

Regardless, I think that we can all agree that Time is the most perplexing philosophical problem of all. It is more perplexing than Reality, it is more perplexing than God, and it is more perplexing than Being.

It is even more perplexing than Nothingness.

If you think tables have an essence, tell us what it is. — Banno

Tableness. The essence of a table is its tableness.

I seem to have been asking that a lot lately. No one wants to say what an essence is. Puts me in mind of the suit belonging to a certain emperor. — Banno

See above.

So why would you even say that there aren't any? — Arcane Sandwich

Any what? Tables? Time? Essences? — Banno

Essences. There are essences, Banno, you just said so. There are no essences, unless we stipulate it so. It follows from that, that there are essences!

↪Arcane Sandwich
Go on. — Banno

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for table-ness? I say there aren't any. Unless you would stipulate some. — Banno

You're saying that tables don't have an essence. Unless we stipulate it so. But then they can have essences, in a modal sense. It's possible for them to have them (the essences, that is). Not merely in a linguistic sense (i.e., modal logic, as developed by Saul Kripke), but in a metaphysical, objective sense.

So why would you even say that there aren't any? Like, it's a super-trivial point, there's nothing of importance, merit, or worth, there.

My point was about your dumb point about tables.

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for table-ness? I say there aren't any. Unless you would stipulate some. — Banno

Yeah but it's like, you're making what can only be described as a dumb point.

Only on Sunday. — Banno

Today is Sunday (in Argentina).

what the blimey this got to do with a Thread called "Ontology of Time". — Arcane Sandwich


This follows on from my first post, in which I pointed out that the OP was then 19 hrs old. — Banno

Nonsense. Appeal to the stone, yadda yadda (on my part), I don't care. What you just said there sounds like nonsense (at least to my ear). It's not good common sense. It's pseudo-science.

The line of thought is that there is something amiss with an argument that claims to show that time, which is pretty foundational, does not exist. It misuses "time", or "exits", or both. — Banno

But that contradicts what you just said in your previous thesis. It's like you want to uphold a Deleuzian thesis and a Wittgensteinian thesis at the same time, and it just makes no sense.

You don't want to mess with me, @Banno. I'm from Argentina. I grew up among Eucalyptus trees.

Ok, then on the Good-Evil Axis, you're a Neutral. — Arcane Sandwich

Now you explain to me what the blimey this got to do with a Thread called "Ontology of Time". And explain that to me rationally.

Wittgenstein didn't care. :smile: — Banno

Ok, then on the Good-Evil Axis, you're a Neutral.

Here's the thing, People (of this Forum):

@Banno is not an atheist. He's a Spinozist.

Not a table, then? — Banno

It's a low blow. A Deleuzian low blow from a Wittgenstein fan. Deleuze hated Wittgenstein.

I think you can post a link, can't you? It's not self-promotion if it's a philosophy article in a journal. — Wayfarer

Yeah well, I'd rather err on the side of caution. Good rule for online Forums, good rule for ordinary life. The obvious question here is,

is there an extra-ordinary life?

@Count Timothy von Icarus Please help me out here, as an intellectual colleague. You're the Christian one, I'm the atheist one, just explain to me how makes any sense, please explain that to me, to the best of your ability.

In all monotheistic traditions God is considered to be a necessary being. — Janus

Are you sure about that? It sounds like it's true, but don't want to rush to any conclusions here.

Jesus' being God is not necessary — Janus

Are you sure about that?

it is only in one tradition that, in the doctrines of its some sects, it is claimed that Jesus is God. — Janus

Again, are you sure about that?

Aren't you discussing the Ship of Theseus?

When the collection of atoms existed as a living tree, it wasn't a table, yet it was the table, just as the wood chips are the table. — Banno


Fortuitous example, considering that the 'hyle' in hylomorphism is precisely 'lumber' or 'timber'. — Wayfarer

Great question. As I understand it, no. The problem of the Ship of Theseus, in my view, is about indeterminate identity. What I'm asking Banno is a different question, a different problem. I should know, since I'm the one that has invented it (but there are some precedents in the literature). I call it "The Argument From Addition". For what? For the elimination of ordinary objects. It also works for the elimination of extra-ordinary objects. I've published a paper about this, in an Australian journal. It's the one that I was talking with Banno a few comments ago. Since I don't want to break the Forum's rules, if you're interested, send me a PM and I'll link it to you.

Let's say that we chop up the table into a fine sawdust. And let's say that we scatter this sawdust in several different countries. If we say that this sawdust is "the" table, instead of being "a" table, then we're saying that scattered objects exist. And if this is so, then there's no reason that stops us from saying that strange mereological fusions (such as @Count Timothy von Icarus example of fox-trouts, i.e. flouts) exist as well.

The obvious reply is, that pile of wood chips is the table. — Banno

There's two problems with that, IMHO:

Problem one: it's counter-intuitive. Obviously our intuitions can be wrong, so perhaps this is more of an aesthetic problem.

Second problem: if you say that the pile of wood chips is identical to the table, then your ontology can't explain artifact destruction (or artifact creation). When the collection of atoms existed as a living tree, was it also a table in that case? Of course not. But if you say that the table is identical to the atoms that compose it, then it follows that the table existed before being a table, in the form of a tree.

Thank you.

Hmm, I get trying to mirror the Christian argument, and I feel like it mostly works, but it does leave room for a few weird objections to P1 on the grounds that "Christ is God" is true, but that this is not "revealed truth." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Here's how I think that ATI4 can be denied. Let's first recall it here, for the sake of convenience:

(ATI4) If it is not a revealed truth that Jesus is God, then Jesus is not God.

A Christian of a rationalist persuasion could argue that in his or her case, it's true that they have not had such a revelation, and that nevertheless Jesus is indeed God. Maybe they have arrived at this idea simply by reason alone. This is similar to Aquinas' intent behind his Five Proofs: some people simply lack faith. In those cases, reason does the work that faith was supposed to do, which is to show that God does indeed exist (and, I would add, that God is indeed Jesus).

It would be an uncommon way to understand the notion of a revealed truth, but it doesn't seem like an impossible to thing to argue for.

I do indeed agree that Christians might prefer to deny ATI5:

(ATI5) It is not a revealed truth that Jesus is God.

The idea would be that it is indeed a revealed truth that Jesus is God. But then I have to ask: must everyone have this revelation? If someone is simply incapable of appreciating this truth, or if someone has no faith whatsoever, what would be the best course of action for the Christian, then?

You are using the inverse of Leibniz's Law, — Banno

Sure, but the distinction between LL and the contrapositive of LL is inessential to my argument. In second order terms:

∀x∀y((x=y) → ∀P(Px↔Py))

Being able to persist while going through the woodchipper is a property that the collection of atoms has, and the table does not have this property. In other words, they have different persistence conditions, and by LL (or its contrapositive), it follows that they're not identical to each other.

Yeah, it is. It is the same table if I gouge out my initials in the woodwork. Removing a few atoms will not make it cease to be that table. — Banno

I personally agree, but that contradicts this other claim that you made:

The table is the exact same object as the atoms that compose it. — Banno

Then you say:

Both examples attempt to be overly precise. — Banno

And that's a bad thing? How would less precision be a good thing here?

If you're interested, I've published a paper about this exact problem (the one about tables, not the one about time). It's free to download. Send me a PM and I'll gladly share it with you.

The table is the exact same object as the atoms that compose it. — Banno

Here are two reasons why it isn't:

1st reason: the table and the atoms that compose it have different properties. So, by Leibniz's Law, they're not identical to each other. For example, if you send the table through the wood chipper, the table ceases to exists, but the atoms don't.

2nd reason: if a table is identical to the atoms that compose it, then if you remove a single atom, you're no longer dealing with the same table, since if you represent both cases using sets, it turns out that the set of n atoms is not identical to the set of n-1 atoms.

Sure. I'll give you two for the price of one. Here's a modus tollens for the elimination of tables:

1) If tables exist, then a table is one more object in addition to the atoms that compose it.
2) A table is not one more atom in addition to the atoms that compose it.
3) So, tables don't exist.

With that in mind, here's a parity argument for the elimination of time:

4) Banno compared tables to time.
5) If so, then: if tables don't exist, then time doesn't exist.
3) Tables don't exist (the conclusion of the previous argument).
6) So, time doesn't exist.

Feel free to replace the predicate "exists" with the predicate "is real".

If n atoms compose the table, is the table the (n+1)th object? If there are a billion atoms, is the table the billionth-and-one object in this case?

I'm not in the habit of entertaining trolls. — Arcane Sandwich


Just berating them. Got it. — Fire Ologist

Of course. Trolls deserve to be promptly berated. Civility is for non-trolls.

Guess you are done with me. — Fire Ologist

Yes, I am. I'm not in the habit of entertaining trolls.

Nah, you don't get to act all sweet now, after the tremendous virtual shit that you just took on my Thread. I've flagged your most recent comment as well. I'm not here to teach you Logic 101, find somewhere else to learn that. That's not the purpose of this Thread.

You've been reported for trolling, and I've flagged your most recent comment as well.

EDIT: By the way, I've brought more value to this forum in a month than what you've brought to it in a year, if you've brought anything of value to it at all.