> herbzet wrote:

>>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?

>
> You pretend not to know, but actually you do know.

> Most of the time our minds are without concepts.
> That's what TV is for ain't it? (Beats meditation.)