Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: s.j.lagoes.j.lagoe Date: Sep 18, 2008 09:25
On Sep 18, 5:06Â pm, arkestra gmail.com> wrote:>> B) Easy money. There's one thing there, obviously. A clay statue of a
>> ballerina. Its lovely. Now pay up.
>
> I think that this is the key statement of B, and one which wins him
> the argument almost by chance due to his wording.
>
> He states that there is one thing, but then qualifies this one thing:
> "a clay statue of a ballerina". Â He is free to do so, because he is
> making the statement, and thus imposing the "point of view" on the
> situation.
That may well be the approach to follow if there's a beer to be
won ;)
>
> If, in this situation, the one thing is equal to "a clay statue of a
> ballerina", and not just "a ballerina", then I do not see how the clay
> itself could be a separate, distinct object, since it is included in
> B's definition of the "thing".
>
> For example, if it were a pitcher of milk, instead of a clay statue of
> a ballerina, then I do not think a similar argument could be made so
> that there are both "a pitcher of milk" and "milk" on the table
> without changing anything about their placement/orientation.
Well, I guess you could analagously pour the pitcher's contents into a
bottle. Then the same milk would be on the table, but the "pitcher of
milk" would be gone. Because the milk was there originally, the "milk"
and "pitcher of milk" must have been different things given that one
has survived while the other has not. Regards, Sigmund.
| 
