Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 12:27 am
@Native Skeptic,
Native Skeptic;168201 wrote:
Both a dog and a fish can be called an animal, are they both fully capable of the same things and contain the same properties? No, they're not. Animal is just a more abstract term, just as "thing" is a more abstract term. Animals share a property that makes them animals, just as objects and ideas do, which I explained, and it is not the ability to kick.

Excellent point. And not only is "animal" a unification of shared characteristics, it's a negation of unshared characteristics. All dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs. Because "animal" means basically everything that animals have in common and not what they don't.

I suggest that synthesis/abstraction is the negation of the accidental and simultaneously the creation/synthesis of essence.
Quote:

Essence and accident are two types of properties which an object can have, and disagreements about them form the basis of many philosophical problems. When a property is classified as "essence," that means that this property is necessary either for the object's existence or, at the very least, the object's membership in some category. Think of "essence" as a property which is "essential."
When a property is classified as "accident," that means that this property is not at all necessary. No matter how often this type of object has the property in question, the object can easily occur without that property. It may help to think of possession of such a property as "accidental."
As an example, we can say that the essence of a mammal is to have warm blood, but having the property of a long neck is, for mammals, simply an accident.

essence vs. accident
[/SIZE]
Native Skeptic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 06:21 am
@Reconstructo,
Quote:
Essence and accident are two types of properties which an object can have, and disagreements about them form the basis of many philosophical problems. When a property is classified as "essence," that means that this property is necessary either for the object's existence or, at the very least, the object's membership in some category. Think of "essence" as a property which is "essential."
When a property is classified as "accident," that means that this property is not at all necessary. No matter how often this type of object has the property in question, the object can easily occur without that property. It may help to think of possession of such a property as "accidental."
As an example, we can say that the essence of a mammal is to have warm blood, but having the property of a long neck is, for mammals, simply an accident.


Accident, however, can ultimately become a methodology of classification as well. While all mammals are warm blooded, some may have another set of properties which while being accident for mammal becomes essence for an even more specific classification, with mammal simply being another essence property for such classification.

All mammals are warm-blooded, some are carnivorous which could be accident on a mammal level of classification but becomes necessary below. For example, canines must not only have have a mammal essence but be carnivorous, which, at this level, becomes essence instead of accident. Some canines can have long fur or short fur, which is accident for canine classification, but when becoming more specific fur length goes from accident to essence, and so on.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 06:26 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;167979 wrote:
Because I think numbers are actually just rarefied language, a language reduced to quantity, I put this in the language philosophy section.



Numbers are not a language. Where did you get that idea? And "3" is not a number, it is a numeral. Arithmetic (if anything) is the language in which we talk about numbers. Numbers are what arithmetic talks about. "3" is no more a number, then is "cat" an animal. Do try to get things just a little it straight.
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 10:51 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;169000 wrote:
Numbers are not a language. Where did you get that idea? And "3" is not a number, it is a numeral. Arithmetic (if anything) is the language in which we talk about numbers. Numbers are what arithmetic talks about. "3" is no more a number, then is "cat" an animal. Do try to get things just a little it straight.


Ah, you're being uptight. You know what I mean. And numbers are indeed a language. But that's alright if you don't like my style.

---------- Post added 05-26-2010 at 11:53 PM ----------

Native Skeptic;168995 wrote:


Accident, however, can ultimately become a methodology of classification as well. While all mammals are warm blooded, some may have another set of properties which while being accident for mammal becomes essence for an even more specific classification, with mammal simply being another essence property for such classification.

I agree. Accident and essence is relative. So we have a tangled network of properties which are also essences, of pieces which are also compounds. We have a system of abstractions. IMO, abstractions have only and can only exist systematically. Just as humans have only and can only exist socially. I'm not counting the man who dies alone in the woods because he had parents.

---------- Post added 05-26-2010 at 11:54 PM ----------

Native Skeptic;168995 wrote:

All mammals are warm-blooded, some are carnivorous which could be accident on a mammal level of classification but becomes necessary below. For example, canines must not only have have a mammal essence but be carnivorous, which, at this level, becomes essence instead of accident. Some canines can have long fur or short fur, which is accident for canine classification, but when becoming more specific fur length goes from accident to essence, and so on.

Again, I agree. And this is a testament to our sophistication as language users. We humans can talk the talk. Smile
TuringEquivalent
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 05:40 am
@Native Skeptic,
Native Skeptic;168045 wrote:
I agree. This doesn't impede my argument, however, since "thing" could easily be defined to hold both ideas and objects.
That's not true. Both ideas and objects have some quality that distinguish them from nonexistence. No one can make an argument for the nonexistence of ideas, for a lack of idea is also possible, and that would make a non-nonexistence, and a double negative which is silly.

But we're not talking about infinite tables, were talking about infinite things, abstraction, remember.

The thing you're not seeing is that things can infinitely expand but they will have a limitation in their detraction, ultimately, you will reach 1 thing, then no things. So, if infinity is began at the one and expanded, the only thing outside of such would have the property of 0 or nonexistence, as I stated earlier.



I don't suppose. Though I cannot tell you the exact beginning I can know in fact that there is a beginning in set of all objects and ideas, and thus, things, due to the current limitation in subtractive, as eventually I will reach 1, then 0 things, if I could reverse the passage of time.


I apologize for the derailing of your thread over this, Reconstructo. I didn't realize I'd have explain this ideology and I had assumed people would understand what such a concept would imply.



Sorry, it is not productive for me to continue this discussion. Bye.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 06:10 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;169416 wrote:
Ah, you're being uptight. You know what I mean. And numbers are indeed a language. But that's alright if you don't like my style.

---------- Post added 05-26-2010 at 11:53 PM ----------




On the contrary, I don't know what you are talking about.
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 02:26 pm
@Reconstructo,
If I say "television," I am referring to a class of objects, all of which have certain essential things in common. It doesn't matter how big they are or what color the non-screen part is. All of that is accidental. The abstract television is a unity of certain properties. For instance, a television without a screen is not a television. A screen is essential to the concept television.

The shape of the remote control is not(negation) of the essence that "television" represents. The size of the screen is not(negation) of the essence that "television" represents. The brand of the manufacturer is not(negation) of the essence that "television" represents. The weight of the television is not(negation) of the essence that "television" represents.

To put it simply, the essence represented by "television" is what all televisions have in common. This is a bit of a tautology, but perhaps it is necessary. We take essences for granted. They are so easy for us that we don't usually think about them. Indeed, they are thought.

Not everyone enjoys thinking about thinking, as it is a tangled business. But I feel that it is of primary importance to philosophy. :whistling:
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 02:52 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;169688 wrote:

I'm arguing that essence is synthesized from the negation of accident.


You're kidding. It isn't! I would never have guessed it, never in a million years! Live and learn, I guess.
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 03:34 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;169694 wrote:
You're kidding. It isn't! I would never have guessed it, never in a million years! Live and learn, I guess.


Is this really so difficult, so abstruse? I don't think so. Especially in the provided context. Smile

---------- Post added 05-27-2010 at 04:40 PM ----------

Reconstructo;169688 wrote:
If I say "television," I am referring to a class of objects, all of which have certain essential things in common. It doesn't matter how big they are or what color the non-screen part is. All of that is accidental. The abstract television is a unity of certain properties. For instance, a television without a screen is not a television. A screen is essential to the concept television.

The shape of the remote control is not(negation) of the essence that "television" represents. The size of the screen is not(negation) of the essence that "television" represents. The brand of the manufacturer is not(negation) of the essence that "television" represents. The weight of the television is not(negation) of the essence that "television" represents.

To put it simply, the essence represented by "television" is what all televisions have in common. This is a bit of a tautology, but perhaps it is necessary. We take essences for granted. They are so easy for us that we don't usually think about them. Indeed, they are thought.

Not everyone enjoys thinking about thinking, as it is a tangled business. But I feel that it is of primary importance to philosophy. :whistling:

I meant to post the above here.
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 06:44 pm
@Reconstructo,
..................................................................BUMP!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Abstraction
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/25/2021 at 07:55:41