Abstract wrote:Arcturus Descending wrote:Abstract wrote:Being something doesn't require looking the part.
I guess it depends on wither that something is a thing defined by how it looks or if it is defined in some other way and just has a typical appearance in association...
I was going for the first part there...things are also necessarily defined or recognized by their physical characteristics; e.g. water is wet and has fluidity...fire is hot and blazes. As for the second part, that is more difficult as we tend to interpret and give meaning to things which are not what they appear to be. For example, is the door opening to allow us in or to let us out? OK