Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: Sep 18, 2008 07:39
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:57:31 -0700, s.j.lagoe wrote:
> B) So there were three?
>
> A) More. Maybe an infinite amount. In fact, the limiting factor on the
> number of things that were overlapping on that ballerina shaped area of
> space seems to be the number of contexts in which you and I could
> imagine that bit of space.
>
> B) Then why the hell did I only say there was one then? You're telling
> me the context I picked was wrong!
>
> A) No I'm not. I've just pointed out that you were mistaken to _only_
> recognize one. But notice how quickly you changed to another when I
> rolled the clay up! You did it with incredible flexibility and speed.
>
> B) But, look, your logic would mean that if noone is there to impose
> that context, well... then there wouldn't be a thing there at all!
>
> A) Exactly.
Pretty good. Thanks.
An argument might be..
The challenge was to define the number of things. Shape is the form or
what a thing can be named, but not the thing itself. So rolled up clay is
also a ball or if flattened a disc.
If thing has mass (even this has the name 'mass') some other observer,
like a snail, which, let's suppose, has no name for this mass still
encounters the 'thing' on the table if it's trying to crawl across the
table. So the clay does exist independent of it's name or context.
So the 'contexts of imagination' are not things that should be counted
here. Make mine a double, please.
If you, A, would have picked up the clay divided in half then say that
'two' was a self-evident property of the 'one' clay which could be
carried to the molecular level, of course... I most likely would have
bought myself and you a drink and poured them both over your head asking
you to prove yourself as being wet.
| 
