Does Relation imply Number??

[Alexistentialism]

Does the word “Relation” imply more than one? As if a relation is a connexion between two or more entities? What about a relationship to oneself? A self-identical relation? Is it either:
a. Relation doesn’t imply number
or
b. That a person cannot really have a relationship with their own self?
or
c. People who have relationships with their own are schizophrenic?
d. Relation describes our dynamic nature and movement in time ought not be thought about in terms of number. What i mean is that a relationship is dynamic and that because time is movement (if you agree it is), the we can have a relationship to ourselves over time?

any thoughts? any options to add here?
thanks

[Nick_A]

Alexistentialism

Does the word “Relation” imply more than one? As if a relation is a connexion between two or more entities? What about a relationship to oneself?

Yes we can relate to our dying animal as described by Yeats:

Sailing to Byzantium
I

That is no country for old men. The young
In one another’s arms, birds in the trees
— Those dying generations — at their song,
The salmon-falls, the mackerel-crowded seas,
Fish, flesh, or fowl, commend all summer long
Whatever is begotten, born, and dies.
Caught in that sensual music all neglect
Monuments of unageing intellect.

II

An aged man is but a paltry thing,
A tattered coat upon a stick, unless
Soul clap its hands and sing, and louder sing
For every tatter in its mortal dress,
Nor is there singing school but studying
Monuments of its own magnificence;
And therefore I have sailed the seas and come
To the holy city of Byzantium.

III

O sages standing in God’s holy fire
As in the gold mosaic of a wall
Come from the holy fire, perne in a gyre,
And be the singing-masters of my soul.
Consume my heart away; sick with desire
And fastened to a dying animal
It knows not what it is; and gather me
Into the artifice of eternity.
IV

Once out of nature I shalll never take
My bodily form from any natural thing,
But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make
Of hammered gold and gold enamelling
To keep a drowsy Emperor awake;
Or set upon a golden bough to sing
To lords and ladies of Byzantium
Of what is past, or passing, or to come.

[JoeTheMan]

The idea of a relation always implies more than one entity which are involved. These entities can be seemingly identical to one another, i.e., a relationship with oneself. Like the self or the whole universe (how the entire universe have any relationships whatsoever, since there’s nothing for it to relate to?) As a side note, Kirkegaard said that: “The self is a relation which relates to itself.”

[Impenitent]

the answer is d

person a at time1 is not the same as person a at time2…

-Imp

[Mentat_Monkey]

Relation just means the connection between two or more conceptual entities.

For example:
What is your relation to yourself?
What is your relation to your friends?
What is your relation to Society?
What is your relation to Canada?
What is your relation to Time?

The relation between you and yourself still exists as you can have an opinion of yourself even though you and yourself are physicly one entity you can conceptually be two. A relation only ever exists as a concept, so physical reality and it’s limitations need not have anything to do with it.

[Meno]

Relation in your use of the word, wouldn’t imply number, but beyond your use perhaps it could.

[Alexistentialism]

Mentat:

A relation only ever exists as a concept, so physical reality and it’s limitations need not have anything to do with it.

i think this a good point. i also think that while concepts are abstracted from reality, there are no concepts that are wholly separate from reality. consequently, i don’t buy into concepts being unaffected by what is physical.