Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: Wolf KirchmeirWolf Kirchmeir Date: Sep 18, 2008 11:15
> On Sep 18, 5:06 pm, arkestra gmail.com> wrote:>>> B) Easy money. There's one thing there, obviously. A clay statue of a
[...]
>> 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.
Siggy, your response indicates that you are are assuming that if there's
a noun for it, it must be a thing. IOW, the 6th grade concept of "noun"
is misleading you. Think "referents" instead of "things", and the puzzle
disappears.
A noun is simply that class of word that appears as the head of a noun
phrase. The fact that we use some nouns to refer to people, others to
refer to objects, others to refer to sensations, etc, is not relevant.
We also use nouns to refer to processes, but we use verbs for the same
purpose (eg, refrigeration - refrigerate). Does that mean that when we
use the noun to refer to a process it's a thing, and when we use the
verb it's not a thing? That's absurd.
Etc.
HTH
--
Wolf Kirchmeir
| 
