6019
|
If someone squashed a horse to make a dog, something new would now exist [Mnesarchus]
|
|
Full Idea:
If, for the sake of argument, someone were to mould a horse, squash it, then make a dog, it would be reasonable for us on seeing this to say that this previously did not exist but now does exist.
|
|
From:
Mnesarchus (fragments/reports [c.120 BCE]), quoted by John Stobaeus - Anthology 179.11
|
|
A reaction:
Locke would say it is new, because the substance is the same, but a new life now exists. A sword could cease to exist and become a new ploughshare, I would think. Apply this to the Ship of Theseus. Is form more important than substance?
|
18892
|
Suppose a world where I'm from different gametes; add my gametes; which one is more me? [McGinn]
|
|
Full Idea:
It seems essential that you come from your gametes. Suppose (for reductio) that I come from Nixon's actual gametes. Now add my actual gametes to that possible world, and suppose they become an adult. Which has the stronger title to be me?
|
|
From:
Colin McGinn (On the Necessity of Origin [1976], p.132), quoted by Nathan Salmon - Reference and Essence (1st edn) 7.25.5
|
|
A reaction:
[See Nathan Salmon 1981:209] Feels like the Ship of Theseus. You say 'that's Theseus Ship', until the rival ship appears around the headland. Confusion. If Nixon's gametes can produce McGinn, the second gametes could produce a Nixon! Then what?
|
9152
|
If green is abstracted from a thing, it is only seen as a type if it is common to many things [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
In traditional abstraction, the colour green merely has the intrinsic property of being green, other properties of things being abstracted away. But why should that be regarded as a type? It must be because the property is common to the instances.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Cantorian Abstraction: Recon. and Defence [1998], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
A nice question which shows that the much-derided single act of abstraction is not sufficient to arrive at a concept, so that abstraction is a more complex matter (perhaps even a rational one) than simple empiricists believe.
|
9146
|
After abstraction all numbers seem identical, so only 0 and 1 will exist! [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
In Cantor's abstractionist account there can only be two numbers, 0 and 1. For abs(Socrates) = abs(Plato), since their numbers are the same. So the number of {Socrates,Plato} is {abs(Soc),abs(Plato)}, which is the same number as {Socrates}!
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Cantorian Abstraction: Recon. and Defence [1998], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
Fine tries to answer this objection, which arises from §45 of Frege's Grundlagen. Fine summarises that "indistinguishability without identity appears to be impossible". Maybe we should drop talk of numbers in terms of sets.
|