RE: SUO: The Story So Far
John,
I am afraid I do not understand your position.
Under what I understand the Whiteheadain process position (a form of
mereological extensionalism), when we apply the names 'statue' and 'clay' to
a particular spatio-temporal extent - we say that this spatio-temporal
extent - this particular instance of a "recurring event type" - is both a
statue and clay. I happen to think this makes sense.
NB - the example is not about the general terms 'clay' and 'statue' - but
about a particular clay statue.
From an Endurantist point of view, because of the way in which continuant
has been defined, there are two things. So the proposed view does not make
sense - in fact, it is false.
I am not sure how you saying you want people to take a Whiteheadian view
differs from Pat and Matthew saying they think people should have a '4-D'
view. in both cases, you leave the Endurantist view out in the cold. I agree
this makes life simpler for you (and me), but it seems a bit hard on the
Endurantist.
You say:
But there is no inconsistency. We can use the ordinary English
words without any trouble and relate them to various formal
definitions, which can also be stated without inconsistency.
This does not seem to me (or the people who work in this area) to be true.
We loosely use the ordinary English words, just as people used to less
loosely use the words 'phlogiston' without any trouble. We can also relate
particular words to two different sets of formal definitions - which are
inconsistent, if we follow ordinary usage. For example, assume that there is
a desk here in front of me (rather than a desk(1) and a desk(2)). As you
yourself have pointed out, the problem comes when formalizing.
I have had innumerable (heated) discussions with Nicola (as no doubt you
have) where, when discussing the clay/statue example, he insists there are
two things (a statue and a lump of clay) and I (as Pat, Matthew and - it
seems - you) would say there are one. How can this be if ordinary English
gives us a straight-forward answer - and the two views are not inconsistent.
The claim that we are talking about different things is only 'right' on one
level - from a common-sense point of view we are talking about the same
thing. If Nicola asks me to pass the continuant statue, I do not say 'I
cannot as I do not know what or where it is'.
This is an important point, as it seems to me that you are suggesting an
answer - we take a particular route (Whitehead), with all its implications,
while at the same time saying that there is no choice. Effectively blocking
out a choice about world-views.
If however, you agree there is a choice, but think that choosing Whitehead's
view is 'good enough' for now. I can see that as a reasonable position - but
you do not seem to be saying this.
Regards,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org]On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: 07 March 2001 17:15
To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: Re: SUO: The Story So Far
Chris,
These aren't inconsistent:
>There a number of well-known positions that are inconsistent (e.g.
>Perdurantism and Endurantism - vide Statue and Clay example).
This is the point that I was making in the discussion about
Whitehead's process approach. We have two informal English
words "statue" and "clay", which people have been using for
centuries without getting into trouble.
If perhaps one definition creates an inconsistency, that is
simply a problem with that definition. See Whitehead's
terminology:
http://www.bestweb.net/~sowa/ontology/anw_obj.htm
According to that view (which I endorse), all objects are
"recurring event types", which result from certain causally
determined processes that result in some aspects (called
objects) remaining recognizable for longer periods of time
than others.
The word "clay" describes one kind of recurring event type,
and the word "statue" describes another kind. Those two kinds
happen to have a large overlap. In particular, the clay may
persist for a longer period of time than the statue. (In 4D
terminology, the space-time region of the clay includes the
space-time region of the statue.)
But there is no inconsistency. We can use the ordinary English
words without any trouble and relate them to various formal
definitions, which can also be stated without inconsistency.
Neither the English words nor their definition in terms of
W's process ontology are causing any trouble. The main
source of confusion seems to be the words "perdurantist" and
"endurantist".
Suggestion: Let's stop using those words. They are causing
more confusion than clarification.
John