more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
Suppose that water, qua vapour, mixes with the atmosphere. Is there any abstract metaphysical principle, other than that of atomism, which implies that water must, in any such process, retain its identity? That claim seems indefensible.
Gist of Idea
We shouldn't think some water retains its identity when it is mixed with air
Source
Henry Laycock (Words without Objects [2006], 1.2 n22)
Book Ref
Laycock,Henry: 'Words without Objects' [OUP 2006], p.29
A Reaction
It can't be right that some stuff always loses its identity in a mixture, if the mixture was in a closed vessel, and then separated again. Dispersion is what destroys the identity, not mixing.
| 12794 | Plurals are semantical but not ontological [Laycock] |
| 17694 | Some non-count nouns can be used for counting, as in 'several wines' or 'fewer cheeses' [Laycock] |
| 17695 | Some apparent non-count words can take plural forms, such as 'snows' or 'waters' [Laycock] |
| 17696 | 'Humility is a virtue' has an abstract noun, but 'water is a liquid' has a generic concrete noun [Laycock] |
| 12791 | It is said that proper reference is our intellectual link with the world [Laycock] |
| 12792 | The category of stuff does not suit reference [Laycock] |
| 12818 | We shouldn't think some water retains its identity when it is mixed with air [Laycock] |
| 12795 | Parts must be of the same very general type as the wholes [Laycock] |
| 12797 | If plural variables have 'some values', then non-count variables have 'some value' [Laycock] |
| 12799 | Descriptions of stuff are neither singular aggregates nor plural collections [Laycock] |