>
>
>s.j.lagoe@googlemail.com wrote:

>> On Sep 18, 1:57 pm, Josip Almasi vrspace.org> wrote:

>>> s.j.la...@googlemail.com wrote:

>[...]

>>>> Below is a dialogue arguing that traditionals view of objects,
>>>> endurance, perdurance in philosophy and logic are incorrect. I would
>>>> be interested to hear your comments, whether you see flaws in its
>>>> argument or what the extensions of it may be. Sigmund.

>>>
>>> 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"?
>>

>>> This may be nice intro story for dialectic reasoning:)
>>> Relation of subject and object and attributing attributes to objects etc.
>>>
>>> Regards...

>
>In Quine's "Mathematical Logic" he says something like (quoting from
>from memory):
>
> "It's not at all evident what constitutes a thing, i.e., is a man
> a thing, or is an event a thing, and a man a collection of events?"
>
>In set theory and (I think) in mereology we have that a collection
>of things is itself a thing.