Just since I feel like discussing philosophy... Here's a puzzle for ya.
Joe walks into a store and spots a clay statue that he'd be interested in buying. Below it he sees two signs. One says "Clay Statues: $20." The other says "Lumps of Clay: $10." He has $20, so he takes the statue to the Merchant to buy it.
J: I'd like to buy this. M: Okay, that will be $30. J: What? But the sign says the statue is $20. M: Yes, that's right. But you are buying two things! You are buying a statue and a lump of clay. They happen to share all the same parts, so you can't buy the statue without also purchasing the lump. J: But that's absurd! The lump of clay IS THE SAME THING AS the statue! They are identical. I'm only buying ONE thing! M: So you are saying there's only one thing here? J: Yes! M: And that thing is identical to both the staute AND the lump of clay? J: Yes! What are you, dumb? M: Oh, okay, that will be $20 for the statue.
So, Joe pays the money. At this point the Merchant takes his fist and smashes the clay statue into a flat, formless mass.
J: What! But you just smashed it! M: It's still there. Don't worry. J: No, it's not! The statue is gone. M: Well, isn't that the same lump of clay right there? J: Well, yes.... but... M: And didn't you just say that the statue and the lump of clay were identical. J: Yes... what's your point? M: Well, if the lump is still there, and the lump is identical to the staute, then the statue must still be there! J: I want my money back!
So, the question still remains, was the statue still there after he smashed it? Was it identical to the lump of clay originally? And if they were identical, how could one survive being smashed while the other is gone?
What do you think?
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Once altered, the merchant becomes the artist. But it is not the same statue that Joe originally intended to buy. It is now a new work of art--one that Joe may not have wanted in the first place....
It would have been a new work of art if the clay was fired as well. Just not in a clump of clay, but then, shattered fragments.
[ September 17, 2003, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: Erik Slaine ]
Posted by pajeba (Member # 5656) on :
A statue can be a lump of clay, but a lump of clay is not necessarily a statue, so they aren't identical.
[ September 17, 2003, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: pajeba ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Yes Erik, but the riddle is that how can they be different statues yet the same lump of clay?
Lump = Statue1 Lump = Statue2
So shouldn't if follow that 'Statue1 = Statue2' since they are both idenical with the same lump?
[ September 17, 2003, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
What I was attempting (lamely) to explain was that the altering of the statue made it a different statue. It is still the same lump of clay, but the statue is now the product of the new creator, and a new creation in itself.
The lump of clay does not change it's "state" of being present, however. Materials are transient and unimportant (to me). I don't think that the common material makes a difference. They are not the same statue.
[ September 17, 2003, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: Erik Slaine ]
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
seems like an issue of form vs. essence to me...
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote: statue can be a lump of clay, but a lump of clay is not necessarily a statue, so they aren't identical.
That's probably the most popular answer... but it has its problems. After all, if they aren't identical then there are two different things on that table - a statue, and a lump of clay - even though they share all the same parts and most people would call it one thing.
I mean, imagine if I put a clay statue on the table and asked you how many things were sitting on that table. You'd say one. Would you think I was being reasonable if I said you were wrong, that there were actually TWO things on the table, two things that just happen to look the same and share all the same parts?
[ September 17, 2003, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by pajeba (Member # 5656) on :
quote: I mean, imagine if I put a clay statue on the table and asked you how many things were sitting on that table. You'd say one. Would you think I was being reasonable if I said you were wrong, that there were actually TWO things on the table, two things that just happen to look the same and share all the same parts?
I don't think that is unreasonable - you could call it any number of things (a pile of atoms/molecules, for example), but the way I see it, that is more like giving the object different qualitative labels. You can't divide the many things/labels into separate entities without destroying some part of what it originally was.
What I meant in my first post is that once the clay is smashed, it is missing the original statue element - it may still be a statue, but it isn't the statue.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
*was hoping for something about the demiurge*
the clay is the constituency of the statue. but the statue's telic purpose is not the same as the telic purpose of a lump of clay.
[ September 18, 2003, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: Toretha ]
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
See? This is the sort of philosophy question that drives physicists nuts. I mean you guys spend your time on stupidities like this? There is one thing there which is a statue and it's also a lump of clay. Once it's smashed, it's no longer a statue but it is still a lump of clay. There's no philosophical problem at all. It's just a simple problem of sets. Then answer is straightforward and not counterintuitive at all. Everyone's intuition about what the answer should be is exactly right. Sheesh! Philosophers should have physics as a required course!
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
*quietly points out that aristotle had terms to explain away these every difficulties to Anne Kate*
*ducks back into shell*
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
Yeah, see? Even Aristotle! And you know how bad a physicist HE was!
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
Philosopher too. Really, this sort of thing isn't a philosopher problem, too easily solves. and physics won't help much with things like "do I exist"
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:There is one thing there which is a statue and it's also a lump of clay. Once it's smashed, it's no longer a statue but it is still a lump of clay.
So, anne kate, your answer is that the statue (or the thing we called both the statue and the lump before) is still there, only it is not a statue anymore?
The trouble with this view is that it causes trouble if we ever think anything ceases to exist, because it seems to mean an object continues to exist as long as the material that it is made out of exists. A billion years from now that statue will continue to exist, although it will probably be neither a statue or lump of clay, but rather some collection of molecules that once made it up but that are now distributed across the galaxy. We could never say the statue is gone, or anything is gone for that matter, because matter never ceases to exist. And that is counterintuitive.
Essentially that solution takes away the existence of things like 'statues' and 'lumps' and instead replaced them with sets of matter ('things') that happen to fit in the statue set or lump set based on their arrangement at any given time. The key to it seeming intuitive is that you don't call the object 'statue' or 'lump', but rather 'it' or the 'thing'. The solution doesn't hold once you start calling them 'statue' or 'lump' rather than the thing. This is fine for making the puzzle go away, but it seems to be contrary to our normal way of talking about objects, in which we DO talk about statues, computers, tables, etc - not the thing that is a statue or a computer or a table right now and might not be one later.
[ September 18, 2003, 02:19 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
hey... Aristotle was a pretty good physicist... he just didn't have Galileo and Newton to stand on...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Actually Aristotle's main problem was stopping at step #2 of the scientific method. If he hypothesized it, he was convinced it was true -- without any experimental evidence, and sometimes in spite of contrary evidence.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
An "object" is more than its constituent material. Joe was incorrect when he said that the statute and the clay were the "same thing."
Of course they are not the same thing. A statute is a work of art; someone has added value to the clay by shaping it with a particular design. Once the statute is smashed, the added value of the artist's labor is gone.
**edited to add**
Imagine this story in a pet shop and Joe was buying a bunny. If the manager smahsed the bunny, the constituent biological parts of the bunny is still there, but the value that Joe wanted from the bunny, its life and companionship, is no longer there. And we wouldn't call the bunny a bunny anymore. Unless we're in a monty python skit.
[ September 18, 2003, 03:37 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
Tres, why of course! Venture to define the word "statue" and your problem will disappear. A statue can be defined for this purpose as a lump of clay which maintains a shape it has been given by some living being (named the 'sculptor') to conform it to a particular artistic vision.
A lump of clay is a collection of a certain size of certain types of molecules in certain configurations.
The thing there to begin with is called for convenience one thing. It qualifies as both a statue and a lump of clay. After being smashed it qualifies as a lump of clay only. The original statue no longer exists. (The fact that it may now be a statue of a certain deconstructionist school of sculptors, one of whom is the Merchant, is irrelevant.)
Are your underlying questions "what do we mean by an 'object'?" and "does it mean anything to say there is 'one' object on a table?" Because things like "statues", "tables", "chairs", "horses" etc. are fairly vaguely defined from the point of view of physics. There will always be gray areas. For instance, if an unfired clay statue melts in the rain, at one point there is a statue and at a later time there is no statue but at what exact instant did the statue go away? Well, those are just boring questions. Whether a lump of clay counts as a statue or not is not a fundamental or important thing. It's semantics only. We can easily define it operationally, by saying if some art lover is willing to buy it and call it a statue then it counts as one. The physical item itself just IS. It doesn't matter at all what we decide to call it.
There are lots of philosophical or metaphysical questions which ARE of interest to physicists. I don't mean to say that the entire field of philosophy is invalid. Nothing of the kind. It's just that sometimes philosophers waste time on stuff that is very easily understood by knowing something about the actual universe we live in, how things work, etc. Study of cosmology and fundamental physics IS quite relevant to philosophical inquiry, is what I meant, and I think anyone who calls themselves a philosopher should want to know ALL about those things.
[ September 18, 2003, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
See, statues really aren't even all that tricky as objects. Why not ask where Beethoven's 9th Sympony resides and whether it's a single thing or many things and exactly when it can be said to cease to exist (say, if an asteroid hits the earth and the human species goes extinct, or just if all written, saved, or memorized instances of it are destroyed)?
Why not ask what it is that constitutes "my voice" in parachat or on an online forum, (jeni can always tell you if it's me or not, if you need to know) and whether it is present or not in a chatroom in which I am talking only to newbies who don't know me, and when I am in a playful mood so am flitting in and out of various joke personas?
Why not ask where is cyberspace? And does it exist as a place because some of us think it does, even though others with whom we hang out there claim it does not? Why not ask if there's any difference in the quality of reality of the space we call "real life" or "threespace" or "meatspace" and that which we call "cyberspace"? Those questions are all much more interesting than "does this lump of clay count as a statue?"
Tres, do read Douglas Hofstadter, who approaches these questions as a physicist, an artificial intelligence researcher, and a philosopher all three. You'd love him!
[ September 18, 2003, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
My answer is that "the thing" which is there is not really a thing at all, except operationally speaking. It's a fluid collection of particles, none of which even have identity. (There is not such a thing as "this particular hydrogen atom". You need to understand that particles themselves can't be thought of as the SAME particles from instant to instant. They aren't.) It's a semantical convenience only. Whether we call it one or many, a statue or a lump, or whether we are there to call it anything at all is not important or interesting. Whatever boundary lines it has aren't even clear in time or space.
I keep trying to understand what it is that you find of interest in all this. Did you ever believe a statue was a real thing, apart from a concept in someone's head?
[ September 18, 2003, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
I always think people who don't believe cyberspace is real must have no understanding of what threespace really is. There is no aspect or quality of "reality" which threespace possesses which cyberspace does not. Only slightly different information channels and bandwidths is all. Otherwise they are strictly similar.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Imagine my mother sitting on a chair in a room:
She is a female, a woman, a mother, a nurse, a grandmother, a sister, a daughter, an aunt, a teacher, a cook, a babysitter, and a friend. Yet when she goes to the movies, she only has to buy one ticket.
Each term is an imperfect descriptor of the thing itself. The thing itself may never cease to exist, but it can and does cease to fit certain descriptive terms as it also changes to fit new descriptive terms.
The lump at one time was not a statue. It was changed so that it became a statue, then was changed again so that it became something that was arguably a different statue. It could also be changed so that it was neither a lump nor a statue.
In reality, the problem seems to be one of definitions rather than philosophy. I'd argue that by attempting to charge twice for the same object, what the merchant was really doing was charging one price for materials and a separate price for the service of having the materials shaped into a statue (a service which he may have performed himself, or may have sub-contracted out to a sculptor).
[ September 18, 2003, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
THe statue was what it advertised a "CLAY Statue". Now if the merchant charged for both a lump of clay and a statue, then he could charge 30. However a Clay statue is only 20
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:In reality, the problem seems to be one of definitions rather than philosophy. I'd argue that by attempting to charge twice for the same object, what the merchant was really doing was charging one price for materials and a separate price for the service of having the materials shaped into a statue (a service which he may have performed himself, or may have sub-contracted out to a sculptor).
This supports my contention that this is not a problem in philolophy, but one of economics. The merchant, being a good capitalist, is just trying to make more money by charging twice for the materials (as a lump and as a statue). Happens all the time.
My belief is that after the merchant smashes it, it is not the same work of art (while possibly still being the same statue ) the customer thought he was buying. Therefore, the customer is perfectly justified in asking for his money back.
Edit for change in terminology.
[ September 18, 2003, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: littlemissattitude ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"There is no aspect or quality of 'reality' which threespace possesses which cyberspace does not. Only slightly different information channels and bandwidths is all."
Anne Kate, this is spoken like someone who doesn't understand MeatSpace at all. While I agree with your larger point, I've got to quibble over your use of "slightly different;" I'd argue -- and quite reasonably, I think -- that the information channels and bandwidths involved are MASSIVELY different, and certainly relevantly different.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Statue 1 = Lump of clay in shape 1
Statue 2 = Lump of clay in shape 2
Lump of clay = Lump of clay
And today only, the statue/nonstatue keychains are on sale for $3.50*! Get yours today!
*plus a $4.99 manufacturing fee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You are completely right, aka, that cyberspace and threespace happen because of the same basic particle interactions. However, this does not make them the same. All words draw from the same pool of letters, yet they are very different. That all things are governed by the same root mechanics does not make all things the same.
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
quote: Anne Kate, this is spoken like someone who doesn't understand MeatSpace at all.
<laughs> How can that be argued with? Yet the same thing can be done equally effectively in the opposite direction. You threespace people (the word meatspace seems crude and carnal to me) simply have no idea what life really is all about. You are confined to one body all your lives, that changes willy nilly in ways you do not intend. Your surroundings are practically static, and obey the promptings of your wishes and imagination only slowly and with great effort. For instance, you can fly, but only in exceedingly unpleasant ways involving huge steel contraptions and these curious and desperate contrivances known as "airports". And you are entirely confined to the close vicinity of one tiny rock slung around a completely forgettable star in an ordinary galaxy in one rather plain universe. I feel so sad for you poor chained beings! And worst of all is you don't even realize that you are totally bound up in every way while we... ... ... are free.
[ September 18, 2003, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"You threespace people (the word meatspace seems crude and carnal to me) simply have no idea what life really is all about."
*grin* The mere fact that you equate carnality with crudity helps explain the difference in our philosophies. Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
How is cyberspace somehow 'bigger' and less limited than meatspace?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Is $20 money? yes. Is $30 money? yes. Is $10 money? yes. Then it really doesn't matter if I give you $10 or $30. They are all money hence all equal.
Name Magic: Ancient magi swore there was magic in names. This proves it.
If we call an item "a Statue" it has a value of $20 and needs to remain unchanged.
If we call the same item "a Lump of Clay" it has a value of $10 and can be reshaped without damaging it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
This doesn't have anything to do with Dr. Phil. I want my money back!
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
I think, AK, that Tom has tricked you into making his point-- there *is* a big difference between "real" and "cyber" Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
"Once altered, the merchant becomes the artist. But it is not the same statue that Joe originally intended to buy. It is now a new work of art--one that Joe may not have wanted in the first place...."
Good one ES
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Thanks! <--aesthete
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I read it and thought "Man, I'd want $10 back."
$20 for a statue, $10 for clay, he got charged $20 and has clay. I'd, at the very least, insist on $10 back. And, basically, since I didn't pay $10 to begin with, that pretty much proves I didn't want a lump of clay to begin with, but I also would never have fallen into the trap of saying that the clay and the statue were the same thing to begin with so. . .
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:See? This is the sort of philosophy question that drives physicists nuts. I mean you guys spend your time on stupidities like this?
I certainly don't.
Mereology has to be the most odious branch of metaphysics.
[ September 18, 2003, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Because things like "statues", "tables", "chairs", "horses" etc. are fairly vaguely defined from the point of view of physics. There will always be gray areas. For instance, if an unfired clay statue melts in the rain, at one point there is a statue and at a later time there is no statue but at what exact instant did the statue go away? Well, those are just boring questions.
Perhaps boring, but nonetheless important (in the same way that many physics proofs would be quite boring but nevertheless important to do). Of course what metaphysicists really care about is not statues. Those examples are just used to think about the way objects work and to justify broad theories. Metaphysicists are looking for a broad and complete way of talking about objects and identity. They need this because so many philosophical questions will utlimately boil down to questions in that gray area.
For one thing, this issue may be central to the question fo what is cyberspace. After all, it's pretty much guaranteed that in a debate over that at least one person will hold the position that cyberspace is identical to just a bunch of data on a bunch of computers. The counter to this is asking what happens if all the computers were disconnected or turned off. The data would still be there but the cyberspace would not. Does that mean cyberspace is something more than that data now? It's the statue and the clay, only in this case it's the cyberspace and the computer data.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
form = information = energy -> entropy That's true whether one is talking of the shape of clay or the shape of cyberspace.
So the "metaphysics" as expressed in this "conundrum" is entirely moot: a silly wordgame relying on accepting dubious premises as true, then applying logic to come up with an absurd conclusion. GIGO Garbage In, Garbage Out
[ September 18, 2003, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
Wow metaphysics on hatrack. Thats awesome. Well, I would like to say that if you study Leibniz's law of indescernabilities (sp?) and you believe it, then you must say that the two objects are not the same for the simple fact that they do not then have the same attributes. If a=b then Fa implies Fb. A is the first statue and B is the second statue, F is the attributes of a and b, and we are assuming they (a and b) are the same. In this case however, the attributes (f) of a (the statue) are much different than the attributes (f) of b (the mass of clay made by the keeper). Therefore, by Leibniz's law, we are wrong in our assumption that a=b. They are NOT the same object, argument proven by contradiction.
To clarify: We assume they are the same and show a contradiction using Leibniz's law by showing that a and b have different attributes. Basically, its modus tollens. If a, then b. Not b, therefore not a. LOL, I love philosophy.
[ September 18, 2003, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Jerryst316 ]
Posted by Youth ap Orem (Member # 5582) on :
The real question is why would the man crush the statue? Was he mad because he didn't get 30$? He sold the statue already, it wasn't his to crush! If i was the one who bought it, i would make him pay me 30$ and then eat the statue right in front of him and then poop it out and laugh and say its the same lump of clay baby... Actually i would do that first and then make him pay me, so he can't use the same excuse on me. Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
quote:After all, it's pretty much guaranteed that in a debate over that at least one person will hold the position that cyberspace is identical to just a bunch of data on a bunch of computers. The counter to this is asking what happens if all the computers were disconnected or turned off. The data would still be there but the cyberspace would not. Does that mean cyberspace is something more than that data now? It's the statue and the clay, only in this case it's the cyberspace and the computer data.
Surely cyberspace is data connected in a certain way, just as a statue is clay formed in a certain way?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote: Perhaps boring, but nonetheless important ... For one thing, this issue may be central to the question fo what is cyberspace. After all, it's pretty much guaranteed that in a debate over that at least one person will hold the position that cyberspace is identical to just a bunch of data on a bunch of computers
Tres is right. This inquiry has real world applications. In the developing field of internet jurisprudence, courts are constantly grappling with what kind of "contacts" an ISP need to make with a state to justify personal jurisdiction. Is it the physical presence of servers and server relays? Is it the transmission of data over state lines?
Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
quote:We have long since learned not to bother overmuch with reason and logic. Logic was formerly visualized as something outside us, something existing independently which, if we were willing, could take us by the hand and lead us into the paths of truth. We now suspect that it was the mind has created to conceal its timidity and keep up its courage, a hocus-pocus designed to give formal validity to conclusions we are willing to accept if everybody else in our set will too. If all men are mortal (an assumption), and if Socrates was a man (in the sense assumed), no doubt Socrates must have been mortal; but we suspect that we somehow knew all this before it was submitted to the test of a syllogism. Logics have a way of multiplying in response to chnges in point of view.... The secure foundations of deductive and inductive logic have been battered to pieces by the ascertainable facts, so that we really have no choice; we must cling to the ascertainable facts though they slay us.
Carl Becker
This was quoted in David H. Fischer's excellent book Historians' Fallacies, and quoted disapprovingly, might I add. I don't think it could be applied to all logic, but I think it most assuredly applies to this brand of philosophy. Really, it is all a semantical question. When someone says "statue," the goal is to fire off a set of neurons in someone else's head, and those neurons will be fairly similar in a large group of people (who speak the same language), and even more similar in another fairly large group (a group who speak the same language and have the same culture). Assuming that the shopkeeper is of the same language and culture as the first guy, he would recognize that the other man would probably not think of an unorganized lump of clay when he heard the term "statue." Therefore, the shopkeeper is being lying: He promised a statue and delivered a lump of clay. There is no metaphysics involved here, only linguistics.
We give things names as a convenience in interacting with reality, the only basis for whether something gets a name is whether giving that object a name is useful for interaction. I don't give all the bumps and such in my leg bone a name because I have no use for that, the words "leg" and "leg bone" do the job quite well enough, perhaps to be modified from time to time by "lower" or "upper" or "left" or "right". A doctor, on the other hand, needs to have names for all the bumps on the bones, because the type of information he needs to communicate (where precisly a break is, for instance) is greatly helped by all the technical physiological terms. So semantic questions are best done on a pragmatic basis: The shopkeeper promised a statue, knew full well what his customer would expect based on the word statue, and did not deliver. Problem solved.
Edited for spelling.
[ September 18, 2003, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: Hazen ]
Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
Beren, that is one problem with legal systems: They try to give artificial precision to an inherently nebulous thing like language. Don't get me wrong, I am all for legality, but they inevitably create some tension, and in the process create horrible things such as lawyers who exist solely so we don't have to spend every day of our lives arguing about artificial creations. Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
T.A.K. I don't think Tom did trick me into making his point for him. I had to think a long while how to say this, but there's still something I'm trying to say that y'all are missing, I do believe.
While it's certainly true that if I were married I would want to share threespace with my husband, it's equally true that I would never dream of not sharing cyberspace with him as well. And were he injured or disabled in either space, I'd share and merge with him completely in whatever spaces we were able to meet. But it wouldn't particularly matter which or how many those were, so very much. All that would be necessary is that he still be himself, and that there be some channel or bandwidth or space in which we were able to meet.
I would not dream of giving up the pleasures of togetherness with my husband, in any and all possible forms. Yet I feel pretty certain that if I do get married it will be to someone I've met and fallen in love with in cyberspace. I don't know if that makes my thoughts clearer, but I think I won't try to say any more. I'm not sure I can communicate this at all well to someone who, if I'm understanding Tom correctly, equates love with carnality.
[ September 18, 2003, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I'm not sure I can communicate this at all well to someone who, if I'm understanding Tom correctly, equates love with carnality."
It's not that I equate love with carnality; it's that I consider carnality an essential component of romantic love.
We are beings of flesh, and our ideas are bound and inexorably shaped by that flesh. Denying these central aspects of our humanity, while certainly very idealistic in a bespectacled kind of way, seems like a recipe for misery.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I think ak has introduced an unfair element into this debate by distracting us with the premise that she may fall in love with us through cyberspace.
Hazen, I agree with you that language is only a imprecise shorthand for our description of the universe. The legal system thrives on this imprecision, since everything in Anglo-Saxon legal system is based on reasoning by analogy. I think lawyers in generally are just people who really wanted to be writers/actors but were just too anal/ugly to make it.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) the customer thought he was buying. Therefore, the customer is perfectly justified in asking for his money back.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
And, basically, since I didn't pay $10 to begin with, that pretty much proves I didn't want a lump of clay to begin with, but I also would never have fallen into the trap of saying that the clay and the statue were the same thing to begin with so. . .
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)