Abstraction

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ----------

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.

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: