>
>
>Keynes wrote:

>> herbzet wrote:

>>>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.

>>
>> Obviously a thing is a concept and a concept is a thing.
>> What if one dispenses with shaky conceptualism?

>
>I give up, what?