SUO: On Clay and Vase
Dear John,
> The main thing that I object to in Nicola's position is his
> interpretation of identity and his claim that the statue
> and the clay are two different things. That is not something
> that either scientists or the proverbial T. C. Mits would say.
Well actually in the usual case the piece of clay and the vase are two
different objects under a 4D view. This is because normally, the vase is
made from a single piece of clay. Thus the spatio-temporal extent of the
piece of clay is different from the spatio-temporal extent of the vase
(except when both come into existance and cease to exist at the same time).
So normally the vase is a sub-state of the piece of clay. Whilst the piece
of clay is also the vase the two are of course co-incident.
I'm sure you know this, but others may not.
Regards
Matthew
============================================================
Matthew West
Operations & Asset Management - Shell Services International
Shell Visiting Professor, The Keyworth Institute
H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
http://www.shellservices.com/
http://www.keyworth.leeds.ac.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
============================================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> Sent: 09 March 2001 03:30
> To: Chris Partridge; John F. Sowa; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: The Story So Far
>
>
>
> Chris,
>
> As I said in my earlier notes, I believe that there are multiple
> points involved in this discussion. And it is misleading to
> lump them all under the terms "endurantist" or "perdurantist":
>
> 1. 3D or 4D coordinate systems.
>
> 2. Processes or objects as the fundamental entities.
>
> 3. Causality or time as the fundamental foundation.
>
> 4. Interpretation of identity and identity conditions.
>
> The most "weird" position that Nicola seems to promote is
> his interpretation of identity. That is separable from the
> other points.
>
> >I know Pat has already mentioned Barry Smith and Peter
> Simons. Can I also
> >suggest Michael Loux (see his introductory book on Metaphysics -
> >particularly the sections on Endurantism and Perdurantism
> :-) and E. J.
> >Loux (Possibility of Metaphysics).
>
> I believe that the first step toward resolving the disputes
> is to get rid of those two terms. They lump too many separate
> issues under two umbrella terms. I refuse to use them, and I
> strongly suggest that we stop using them in these email
> discussions.
>
> > I will name more if it would make any
> >difference. There are lots of people who seriously take this
> position.
>
> That is another reason why I want to get rid of the terms.
> Peter Simons, for example, has done a great deal of work with
> Whitehead's process philosophy. I can't believe that he is
> fully devoted to anything as weird as what Nicola was proposing.
>
> >You say:
> >The view that the statue and the clay are the "same thing"
> >can be safely held in either a 3-D or a 4-D poin of view.
> >I really don't know how to classify Nicola's position,
> >since it seems to be inconsistent with the way ordinary
> >human beings talk, with the way that scientists talk, and
> >with the way that most philosophers talk.
>
> >This seems to me false. On the face of it our language is
> 'Endurantist'.
>
> Again, I don't know what you mean by that, since ordinary
> English is perfectly well suited to being used on all
> sides of the four issues I mention above. See, for example,
> Whitehead's essay, which is written in ordinary English:
>
> http://www.bestweb.net/~sowa/ontology/anw_obj.htm
>
> >I do not say 'my life went to the cinema last night' - or 'I am
> long (in the
> >same sense as 'I have had a long life'). We certainly do not
> say 'a temporal
>
> >stage of me went to the cinema last night'.
>
> Of course not. We use ordinary English terms, which can be
> formally defined in many different ways. And the simplest way
> I can see to define them makes them perfectly consistent with
> Whitehead's process philosophy.
>
> >As you can see, I think, as a matter of fact, you are
> incorrect in the way
>
> >you characterize 'Nicola's' position.
>
> The main thing that I object to in Nicola's position is his
> interpretation of identity and his claim that the statue
> and the clay are two different things. That is not something
> that either scientists or the proverbial T. C. Mits would say.
>
> John
>