Tommy can discover a pen, by seeing it for the first time. He cannot invent it by seeing it. — creativesoul

Ok, let's say,

Jommy cannot invent it without discovering it , without seeing (experiencing) it.

So there is an obvious distinction between discovery and invention that we are confusing here. How do we factor in identification here?

do you prefer to use ‘cock’ over ‘penis’? — Brett

I prefer to use it over pussy. Oops, sorry. Please disregard that comment.

Oh damn, i never thought I'd open up so easily to the ordinary use of language.

I think a cross linguistic comparison would be very helpful in understanding the universal essence of adult language. Mere reference to the socially improper seems insufficient.

Don't you even want to know my stupid reason?

He cannot invent it by seeing it. — creativesoul

I respectfully disagree.

@creativesoul

I feel a strong sense of time or history to be present in your basic pressuppositions here.

What have we discovered that did not exist in it's entirety prior to our discovery? — creativesoul

The better question is: what is it that we can actually presuppose exists in its entirety prior to our discovery of its existence in its prior entirety?

I am not trying to be difficult or obstinate. I sincerely want to understand these questions better. And I would never get the chance to work out these things anywhere but TPF.

Then what about the original discovery. Would that thing exist if it were not for the human intervention?

They are existentially dependent upon humans. If there were never any humans, there would never have been any pens. In addition, it also notes that some things that are existentially dependent upon humans can be discovered b — creativesoul

It also does not exhaust the requirements for a thing to exist in its entirety prior to its discovery. I know you cannot accept this disjunction.

In addition, it also notes that some things that are existentially dependent upon humans can be discovered by another human at a later date. — creativesoul

That is awfully inferential, and requires major qualification.

Correct. Pens didn't exist prior to their invention.

One who is unfamiliar with a pen can discover one though. They do exist in their entirety prior to their discovery. — creativesoul

That is a categorical error of some kind or another. The pen is a particular invention. Can I not use the blood from my finger as a pen? Now we are getting into the same error of functionality that you were claiming of Shamshir.

It can be proven that humans invented pens in this world. — creativesoul

Then pens didn't exist in their entirety prior to their invention. What is it without the human touch? Not a pen. Not a tree. Not a galaxy. Not the great Merkwurdichliebe.

@creativesoul

You still haven't answered my question: How does a thing exists in its entirety, prior to its discovery?

It seems to me that different languages regard profanity in very different ways. For example, in Spanish, the offense of profanity seems to be more closely associated with the context in which it is used, rather than through its mere utterance, as seems to be the case in English.

Someone who has only ever written with a pen, sees it as a writing implement.
Someone who has only ever been stabbed with a pen, sees it as a dangerous weapon.
It's the same pen - but it looks different from each side, just like how your back looks different from your front. — Shamshir

I think it can be put more didactically. We discover things that exist in their entirety, prior to their identification. There are primary attributes that we cannot help but identify. But through the ingenious creativity of the human intellect, it is very easy to apply secondary attributes to a thing's identity.

Actually, nevermind... I retract this.

They're not. They're something that exists, regardless if humans figured it out or not.
The sculpture inside the rock exists, even if you don't carve it out. — Shamshir

If properties are inherent to their objects, we discover them. If not, they are created by the aesthetic application of intellect.

@creativesoul

I think we are working with two terms, existence and identity. I am confounding them here.

Let me clarify. Existence is something that is independent of identity. Identity is dependent on existence.

The identity of all things is existentially dependent upon being created by a human. <----- that follows.

I have no issue with that. — creativesoul

Then, a thing cannot exist in its entirety prior to its discovery, unless that thing exists as part of some type of universal understanding (logical architecture) that is inherent to all members of a species.

Upon what ground would one doubt that? — creativesoul

Well, if the identity-(existence) of all things is reducible to human creation, and all human creation is existentially dependent upon being created by a human, then existence prior to human contact is unthinkable.

I know you wouldn't. And that's what makes you a better philosopher than I.

That something can exist in its entirety prior to human contact.

A screwdriver is existentially dependent upon humans.

Agree?
— creativesoul

How would we prove this?
— Merkwurdichliebe

If one cannot simply agree that screwdrivers are human creations and all human creations are existentially dependent upon begin created by a human, then there's not much more I can say to such a skeptic. — creativesoul

All we need to do is clarify what is meant by "things can exist in their entirety prior to our discovery of them". In other words, what's the difference between an undiscovered thing, and a discovered thing? Obviously, both exist in a peculiar way.

We discover things that exist in their entirety prior to our [ creation (viz. what they might become to us) ]. Screwdrivers are products of our manufacture. — creativesoul

I would agree if you put it like that.

It's identity and what it is identified as, are different - because they can overlap, wouldn't you agree? — Shamshir

I might agree, while I do incline towards a rejection of "man as the measure of all things", for argument's sake, I would have to be very clear about what we are talking about by identity to settle on one side or the other.

The screwdriver is a human creation. — creativesoul

It's not. It's a human discovery. — Shamshir

Creativity and discovery - Man as artist, versus man as journeyman...a very interesting debate. And if both, which is primary?

What makes it a screwdriver a screwdriver? Its identity. Where does identity come from: the thing (its inherent properties/attributes) or the one identifying the thing (a cognitive representation)?

I don't know.

This gets to an important historical issue in philosophy proper, namely the misguided notions of necessity/contingency... — creativesoul

I would like to hear more about this.

A screwdriver is existentially dependent upon humans.

Agree? — creativesoul

How would we prove this? If man is the measure of all things, then we can only understand this "existential dependency" by the measure of man. It is a perplexing paradox.

What even is a screwdriver? A sharp stick of metal.

Can you use a knife as a screwdriver? You can.
But you don't, because you the observer choose not to, not because they are intrinsically different.

But you can't cut with a screwdriver, right?
You can, using the tip - which is the way you cut a with box cutters and box cutters are essentially pocket knives. — Shamshir

You are making screwdrivers out to be violent weapons, but can they not also be repurposed to feed our babies? :joke:

It merely alters the perception of the object. The object remains the same throughout all instances, but relative to the observer it alternates, due to the changes occuring with the observer; which is to say discovery. — Shamshir

This would apply to, say, identifying the screwdriver as an ice pick. Perhaps, a screwdriver by any other name?

"protecting" oneself — Grre

That would make nice thread.

@creativesoul
@Shamshir

For a nondescript thing to change into something identifiable, like a screwdriver, because of its apprehension in thought/belief, would entail a problem of perpetual alteration, meaning that discovering anything new (qua functionality, correlations &c.) about the screwdriver would change it into something else. But, by presupposing all its properties in its propositional form (qua the existential constant), it retains its essentiality, despite any subsequent predication (true or false).

And the original always holds these parts, regardless of their discovery. — Shamshir

The existential constant?

A screwdriver is always a screwdriver. With the added meaning that relation grsnts, it becomes a screwdriver+.
Go back to the first sentence and realise the meaning dissolves like salt in water. — Shamshir

Is that because the instant the sentence is posited, the term screwdriver has propositional significance - viz. meaning?

It doesn't need that relation to be a screwdriver, but the relation is an inevitable consequence — Shamshir

This is where it gets tricky. But I am the great Merkwurdichliebe, and I demand reconciliation on this matter...or else! :strong:

Are you wanting to get into Kantian notions, synthetic apriori, in particular? — creativesoul

Negative. I just wanted to hear your assessment of how the content of thought/belief can exist prior to thought/belief. But, at the bottom of it all, this kantian scheme seems inescapable, so never mind, unless you have a better notion. I'm willing to listen.

Anyone is more than welcome to try. I would think that if it could be done, it would have been by now. Folk around these parts carry axes... — creativesoul

What they need is a feller buncher, like what you drive.

It has been argued for. Without subsequent refutation and/or valid objection it does not need to be further argued. I'm seeing where it leads. — creativesoul

Not the less short answer I was looking for, I know you can do better, but I will accept it so as to avoid complicating matter.

wait... that could be argued. What is the less short answer?

:lol: :cry: