On Sep 18, 3:32Â pm, forbisga...@
msn.com wrote:
>> On Sep 18, 1:57Â pm, Josip Almasi
vrspace.org> wrote:>>> Extensions are pointing to flaws.
>>> Like JJ said, it was clay all the time, but it's changing properties
>>> (attributes).
>
>> Sure, but a statue can be repaired when it becomes damaged resulting
>> in the same statue but with different material composition. Then of
>> course it is the statue that's properties have changed. There is
>> nothing special about the clays objecthood compared to the figures
>> objecthood - they are both valid things right, and the both "exist"?
>
> I'm not sure why you claim two statues are the same if they have
> different material composition? Â What kind of concept of identity
> have you?
Simple. The concept of identity that recognizes that one person can
point at a statue and say it has been there for fifty years, despite
being repaired three times, while another person can point at it and
say there have been three statues there over the years, all of the
same design (i.e a concept of identity that is based on empirical
evidence, like all good scientific models).
>
> Consider personal identiy.
>
> I exist in the here and now. Â I share a relationship with a string
> of blokes near me within these coordinates but they are not me
> and if it is a choice between them and me I choose me. Â What
> has that guy who exists next week ever done for me and what
> did I ever ask of the guys before me?
Hard to reply to this because I couldn't follow it absolutely
coherently.I would imagine t depends on what context you are defining
"you".
>
> And yet, why do we consider time special and not one of the
> other dimensions. Â Or is that dementions?
>
> What is a thing? Â
> The clay figure of the ballerina was destroyed
> and a ball of clay put in its place. Â At the time of the bet the
> ball of clay did not exist and so couldn't have been on the table.
> Talk about "the clay" is a mere obfuscation. Â "The clay" does
> not exist separate from its other properties.
A piece of clay is a thing. It has a property "shape", that here
happens to be "spherical".
The ball is also a thing. It has a property "material" that happens to
be "clay".
I don't see the difference, as to why one is an object and the other
is not. If you try and impose some pre-ordained primacy of one
viewpoint over the other you will end up in a tangled mess.
