RE: SUO: The Story So Far
"John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>:
>Chris,
>
> >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.
Statue = clay makes a kind of sense, in 3-d or 4-d; but it goes
further than that. Imagine the clay being fired in the kiln, and then
it is both statue and clay and firing; the thing is identical to the
event. Many people find that much harder to swallow.
> >
> >NB - the example is not about the general terms 'clay' and 'statue' - but
> >about a particular clay statue.
>
>Yes, that is the point of view that Whitehead would take,
>it is the point of view that Peirce would take, and it is
>also the point of view that Aristotle would take. I don't
>know anybody, except perhaps Nicola, who would seriously
>consider any other position.
I really doubt that Aristotle thought about 4-d, but others than
Nicola would include at least Peter Simons and Barry Smith, to name
two living colleagues. In fact I think that the endurantist view is
much more common than the perdurantist one. It seems to be the line
that people find most immediately compelling, probably since it fits
very naturally with normal ways of talking. I recall causing a huge
row on the PSL discussion group a few years ago by claiming that
there was no real difference beteween a process and an object. (I
used the example of a ripening tomato, and showed that it fitted the
PSL process criteria, and was chastised for causing silly
time-wasting debates, since it was just obvious to all normal people
that a tomato was NOT a process.)
> >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 know, why don't we all just say, to hell with endurantists? They
cause no end of trouble. We can run rings around them in any
technical debate, and in any case they are mostly nerdy academics who
will never make serious $$ in their entire pathetic scholarly lives,
so who needs them? The IEEE doesn't even know the difference.
.....
>Nobody has ever asked me to pass a "continuant". They ask me
>to pass "a statue". And if I ask them, you mean this lump
>of clay? They would say "yes".
And if you then smash it, grind it under your foot, sweep it up and
pass them the pile of clay, will they be happy? (Sorry, I couldn't
resist asking.)
Pat
PS Another famous example, by the way, to illuminate the limitations
of common sense, is to ask someone to take an empty, clean, cup; spit
into it; then drink the liquid in the cup. People find the idea
revolting: why?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes