So in the end, if we want to reduce this polarisation, it would seem necessary to come up with a societal project where more people can believe to be a part of. — ChatteringMonkey
But now back to the topic in hand. — Pattern-chaser
Now, where is that Wikipedia editor? — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Yes, civilization, the world created by humans.By world you mean civilization I believe, because the world runs better than clockwork. — Vince
Yes ... but I was imagining each musician playing subjectively with musical time. Crash and burn! ;-)Music already runs on subjective time though, at the speed of the conductor,
Interesting. One of the things that fascinates me most about music is how time flows in/through it.The funny thing to me, as a musician I feel like listening to music and playing it appears to slow down time.
That's the very reason why we have clocks. — Vince
Is anyone on here a journalist writing for a major publication? — Anthony
The question conceals an error. — Dfpolis
So again, thinking about ontology in terms of 'essence' is not what 'reductionism' usually means. — Wayfarer
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
I'm saying that X consists of more than just Y, it consists of specific arrangements of Y. — VagabondSpectre
I know you were not intending to, but I want to interject and say that OCD can be a serious psychological disorder ... — darthbarracuda
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
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
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
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