tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post110206505136764146..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Gappy ObjectsRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1114051579973980812005-04-20T22:46:00.000-04:002005-04-20T22:46:00.000-04:00Metaphysics is effective if you have a strong sens...Metaphysics is effective if you have a strong sense of what your function is and what your culture is.<BR/><BR/>Plato was operating within a culture of philosophy that honored Pythagorean mysticism. Plato was a persuader, and his metaphysics was persuasive. Unfortunately, Plato was not as profound a mystic as Pythagoras, so it's easy to twist Plato to unintended meanings.<BR/><BR/>Aristotle was just a particularly domineering classroom tyrant. Just as Aristotle's student (Alexander of Macedon) raped and pillaged the political world, but ultimately achieved nothing positive, Aristotle developed an excellent method of "proof by intimidation" that serves to keep second-rate teachers and students quiet while the Big Ape is talking. <BR/><BR/>If you want rhetorical hegemony without regard for logic or truth, by all means embrace Aristotelian metaphysics. If you want to use Platonic metaphysics to figure out what Pythagoras was talking about, you have a much harder task -- you may be well advised to start with medieval Neo-Platonists, or even the medieval Arab thinkers.<BR/><BR/>Assuming you do work in Neo-Platonistic metaphysics, you will probably find a lot of use for objects that look gappy to naive observers but are seen to be connected, even integral, by different means of perception.<BR/><BR/>However, Neo-Platonism is not easy, and your professors might very well hate you for liking it. I turned away from further study in philosophy because I couldn't stand philosophy profs who claimed to be open-minded and then used every dirty trick in the book to censor dissent.<BR/><BR/>Currently I still enjoy doing metaphysics, but the only people who listen to what I have to say are *not* in English-speaking academia. Interestingly, Asian professors have been much more interested in my ideas than American ones, and I may end up pursuing graduate study of metaphysics in an Asian country such as Japan.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1102291074560789202004-12-05T18:57:00.000-05:002004-12-05T18:57:00.000-05:00Clearly all objects are only objects by convention...Clearly all objects are only objects by convention. An object is a word for describing a-thing-that-can-have-a-name. It's just a human convenience. If you find it convenient to describe a gappy object, go for it. If you find it inconvenient, then don't. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?melbournephilosophy.com" TITLE="tennessee at tennessee dot id dot au">Tennessee</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1102159979107551242004-12-04T06:32:00.000-05:002004-12-04T06:32:00.000-05:00Richard: "There's no metaphysical connection betwe...Richard: "There's no metaphysical connection between (say) Alaska and Hawaii, it's purely conventional."<br /><br />There are connections between Alaska and Hawaii. By looking at them together you'll see that they governed by the same federal government. Maybe we should allow such human connections as well.<br /><br />I also find information theory very interesting, especially things like the Holographic Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle). I'm also still looking for some good books about it, though.<br /><br />Amantine <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F12%2Fgappy-objects.html" TITLE="aman_tine at yahoo dot com">Amantine</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1102131750967024952004-12-03T22:42:00.000-05:002004-12-03T22:42:00.000-05:00Scof - metaphysics is not to everyone's taste, I f...<B>Scof</B> - metaphysics is not to everyone's taste, I freely admit. But I enjoy it, so I hope it won't put you off reading my other posts on (more down-to-earth) topics. As to how I got interested in it, I had an excellent lecturer for the metaphysics course I took earlier this year. I'm naturally inclined towards abstract thought anyway, and you don't get much more abstract than metaphysics - it's like mathematics with meaning.<br /><br /><B>Amantine</B> - interesting suggestions. If they work, that would seem to count against even mere spatially-bizarre fusions. But I wonder if there's any way to accept the spatial ones whilst rejecting the temporal ones?<br /><br />But if we want to reject spatial fusions too, then (something like) your suggestions are probably the way to go. If we have an objective/formal definition of "information" then that could serve our purposes here. (Information theory is something I'd like to learn about, so if anyone has any good references to recommend, I'm all ears!)<br /><br />However, don't we still get some troubling counterexamples? For example, how would you deal with the U.S. territory? There's no <I>metaphysical</I> connection between (say) Alaska and Hawaii, it's purely <I>conventional</I>. Perhaps we could simply concede that the U.S. is not a 'natural' object (which isn't exactly a surprise).<br /><br />So, perhaps we should admit any arbitrary spatial fusion as a (conventional/artificial) 'object', but reserve a special status for ones whose parts are highly interconnected (in some, yet to be precisely specified, sense.) That sounds quite promising to me. Thanks for the suggestion! <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1102108052555339922004-12-03T16:07:00.000-05:002004-12-03T16:07:00.000-05:00I think we should determine how close two objects ...I think we should determine how close two objects are connected and then just set a limit to what can still be called one object. I've been able to think of several ways to determine how close two objects are connected:<br /><br />1) Two objects are connected closer when the information you can get from viewing them together is larger than the added information of viewing both of the objects by themselves. An electron in my computer and one in the sun are not very closely connected, because there is not much more information looking at both of them together than looking at them by themselves. Two electron in a molecule are more closely connected because looking at them together, interacting, can give you more information about the molecule than looking at both of them isolated. The problem here is the definition of information.<br /><br />2) Two objects are more closely connected when a small chance in one of the object has a large influence in the other object or in the entire system. More the apple a meter to the left won't influence Mars much, but moving your arm a meter to the left would influence your body tremendously. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F12%2Fgappy-objects.html%23comments" TITLE="aman_tine at yahoo dot com">Amantine</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1102106237492581592004-12-03T15:37:00.000-05:002004-12-03T15:37:00.000-05:00Your problem is you need a relationship between yo...Your problem is you need a relationship between you and the cat of the type that exists between you and yourself tomorrow if you want that to be valid otherwise "the object" is "everything including now and the future".<br />still having engaged with it .. <br />I can empathise with scof - if you dont anchor a concept in reality (the definition of an object is a mental game not really bound to reality) then any paradox that emerges may have more to do with hte foundations of the question than a real issue with the argument. <br /> <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F12%2Fgappy-objects.html%23c110209478801506331" TITLE="spat012 at hotmail dot com">GeniusNZ</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1102094788015063312004-12-03T12:26:00.000-05:002004-12-03T12:26:00.000-05:00I will keep perusing and reading what you have, bu...I will keep perusing and reading what you have, but this post makes my head hurt. How did you find the topic to be of interest to you? It seems rather arcane, in my humble opinion. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Escofield99%2F" TITLE="">Scof</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com