Some really interesting concepts and food for thought from last week’s reading was reinforced by tonight’s lecture.
Xenophanes defined the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and it advocates that knowledge can only be attained through Justification, Truth and Belief (JTB). Justifying that something is true, believing that it is true and it turns out to be true, that’s knowledge. Therefore, everything that we do is based on hypotheses. Without any of the factors, we would not be able to “fabricate” knowledge. Xenophanes also thought that God is perfect. This would mean that he is at a perfect spot and he does not move. If God has to move to change his position, the act of him making a change could be translated into a flaw as imperfection was the impetus for the change. Of course, this is assuming that God is omnipotent and all of him thinks, sees and hears from where he is. This concept ties in well with the phrase “change for the better” I guess. When we all make a conscious effort to change a part of us, or to change something, it always stems out of the desire to improve. The converse is rarely true. No one changes with the intent of deteriorating.
The really interesting part from tonight’s lecture was on the conundrum of identity. We were given the scenario of a ship of Theseus. Let's call it Ship A. Ship A circumnavigated the world and replaces all the planks, sails and nails as it goes around the world. Ship A returns to the port. Is this the same ship that it was when it left the port? There is a second scenario. Ship A went on a tour around the world. Ship B follows Ship A and it tours the world together with Ship A. Whenever Ship A replaces something, Ship B keeps every single thing that Ship A replaces: planks, sails and nails. Ship B now returns to the port and uses everything that was collected from the trip to build up a new ship. Which is Ship A now?
There are 2 theories to support this; namely the Mereological theory of identity (you are the same if you have the same parts) and the Spatio-Temporal Continuity theory (you are the same if you maintain continuity through time, even if constituent pieces change). I am skewed towards the Spatio-Temporal Continuity theory. I believe that Ship A is still Ship A in the second scenario. Even though another ship was built with the disposed parts of Ship A, it does not assume the identity of Ship A due to the fact that the Ship A did not have an intermission in continuity. When the parts are disposed, they lose their identity, until their new owners come along. When the parts are made into a new ship, they then take the identity of the new ship. The Mereological theory is tantamount to having organ transplant patients change their identities to that of their donors; unheard of, and bordering on ludicrous. However, hearing both theories gave me a better perspective of where the other train of thought is coming from. I think neither theory is wrong and that they both bear some element of truth, depending on how you look at it.
The deductive argument that Parmenides came up with is really interesting and I have yet to find a false premises to prove that a conclusion is false. This entire concept was really profound and hard to grasp.
The concept of nothing and nothingness. Nothingness doesn’t exist; otherwise it would be called something. If something were to cease to exist, it would become nothing. This would mean that nothing has come to existence and we had earlier determined that nothingness cannot exist.
If something exists, it will always exist. This leads to implications that denies the existence of change (to change results in a loss of a certain quality and a quality cannot disappear), motion (to move, nothing must be there and nothingness cannot exist) and differences (differences would mean a lack of quality in another). In my humblest opinion, the theory surely cannot be all encompassing. We do know that mass cannot be created or destroyed, so change can exist if we are referring to an object, because the mass is transferred to another form of mass. However, if we are talking about something intangible, like a quality, how does one classify the ‘disappearance’ of something intangible? Also, motion does not necessarily mean that nothing must be there in order to move. Motion can take place when there is something there to block, however, what does not take place is displacement. Once again, differences exist not necessarily because one exudes a quality that another doesn’t. Qualities are relative, and different people have varying degrees of that quality. For example, if I am smarter than the boy next door is, it doesn’t mean he lacks my intellectual capacity. It just means he has a watered down capacity, as compared to me. In this case, differences can exist.
With all these theories jamming up my brain, there is no more space for anything else now. Nothing can fill up my brain now. Then again, nothing doesn’t exist, does it?
Xenophanes defined the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and it advocates that knowledge can only be attained through Justification, Truth and Belief (JTB). Justifying that something is true, believing that it is true and it turns out to be true, that’s knowledge. Therefore, everything that we do is based on hypotheses. Without any of the factors, we would not be able to “fabricate” knowledge. Xenophanes also thought that God is perfect. This would mean that he is at a perfect spot and he does not move. If God has to move to change his position, the act of him making a change could be translated into a flaw as imperfection was the impetus for the change. Of course, this is assuming that God is omnipotent and all of him thinks, sees and hears from where he is. This concept ties in well with the phrase “change for the better” I guess. When we all make a conscious effort to change a part of us, or to change something, it always stems out of the desire to improve. The converse is rarely true. No one changes with the intent of deteriorating.
The really interesting part from tonight’s lecture was on the conundrum of identity. We were given the scenario of a ship of Theseus. Let's call it Ship A. Ship A circumnavigated the world and replaces all the planks, sails and nails as it goes around the world. Ship A returns to the port. Is this the same ship that it was when it left the port? There is a second scenario. Ship A went on a tour around the world. Ship B follows Ship A and it tours the world together with Ship A. Whenever Ship A replaces something, Ship B keeps every single thing that Ship A replaces: planks, sails and nails. Ship B now returns to the port and uses everything that was collected from the trip to build up a new ship. Which is Ship A now?
There are 2 theories to support this; namely the Mereological theory of identity (you are the same if you have the same parts) and the Spatio-Temporal Continuity theory (you are the same if you maintain continuity through time, even if constituent pieces change). I am skewed towards the Spatio-Temporal Continuity theory. I believe that Ship A is still Ship A in the second scenario. Even though another ship was built with the disposed parts of Ship A, it does not assume the identity of Ship A due to the fact that the Ship A did not have an intermission in continuity. When the parts are disposed, they lose their identity, until their new owners come along. When the parts are made into a new ship, they then take the identity of the new ship. The Mereological theory is tantamount to having organ transplant patients change their identities to that of their donors; unheard of, and bordering on ludicrous. However, hearing both theories gave me a better perspective of where the other train of thought is coming from. I think neither theory is wrong and that they both bear some element of truth, depending on how you look at it.
The deductive argument that Parmenides came up with is really interesting and I have yet to find a false premises to prove that a conclusion is false. This entire concept was really profound and hard to grasp.
That it is not and it is necessary for it not to be.
The concept of nothing and nothingness. Nothingness doesn’t exist; otherwise it would be called something. If something were to cease to exist, it would become nothing. This would mean that nothing has come to existence and we had earlier determined that nothingness cannot exist.
That it is and it is not possible for it not to be.
If something exists, it will always exist. This leads to implications that denies the existence of change (to change results in a loss of a certain quality and a quality cannot disappear), motion (to move, nothing must be there and nothingness cannot exist) and differences (differences would mean a lack of quality in another). In my humblest opinion, the theory surely cannot be all encompassing. We do know that mass cannot be created or destroyed, so change can exist if we are referring to an object, because the mass is transferred to another form of mass. However, if we are talking about something intangible, like a quality, how does one classify the ‘disappearance’ of something intangible? Also, motion does not necessarily mean that nothing must be there in order to move. Motion can take place when there is something there to block, however, what does not take place is displacement. Once again, differences exist not necessarily because one exudes a quality that another doesn’t. Qualities are relative, and different people have varying degrees of that quality. For example, if I am smarter than the boy next door is, it doesn’t mean he lacks my intellectual capacity. It just means he has a watered down capacity, as compared to me. In this case, differences can exist.
With all these theories jamming up my brain, there is no more space for anything else now. Nothing can fill up my brain now. Then again, nothing doesn’t exist, does it?
1 comment:
you might find this essay interesting:http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9972
Post a Comment