Making ends meet

How does one make ends meet? here are two ends meeting:


My first question is, do they meet in the middle?

Clearly, there aren’t any mathematical or geometrical considerations even for something as basic as this. We can see that the ends meet anywhere on the line that we want them to meet, provided it is not at the ends themselves.

How would philosophy describe the division of the line that arises from the meeting of ends? Here are some options:

  1. Assymetric. The line fragments on either side of the meeting of the two ends are not equal. This linguistic formulation doesn’t work for we have no means of assessing the assymetry.
  2. Symmetric. This doesn’t work because of the reason given in 1) above.
  3. Vague. This doesn’t work because vague means “not clear”, yet if the line can be divided on the basis of its ends meeting then that division, as a division, is quite clear, whatever it is.
  4. Ambiguous. If ambiguous means two or more possibilities of a meeting or dividing point then this doesn’t work. It doesn’t give us the option of there being only one meeting point.

So what word would a philosopher use to describe the division of a line caused by two ends meeting? All I can think of at the moment is that the division is “certain”, which doesn’t say enough.

Doesn’t say enough? What more do you want?

You are trapped in the confines of the thought about how you would experience being separated from something that cannot be separated except by illusion of thought. That’s why you’re trying to use the same experiencing structure to free yourself from confines it created.