Look…this is one of those things that I think is too simple to fuck up.
If you’re singling out an object of inquiry, and you intend to distinguish if from other objects, then you must point to properties of that object that are not shared with the object from which you intend to distinguish it.
If you’re grouping an object of inquiry with others that you intend to identify it with, then you must point to properties of that object which are shared with the objects with which you intend to identify it.
If you’re identifying one object with another, and the property you point to is one that’s shared by things that you don’t want to identify it with, (even if the one you want to identify it with has the property) then you’ve done it wrong.
If you’re distinguishing one object from another and the property you point to is one that’s shared by objects that you’re trying to distinguish it from, then you’re doing it wrong.
I think this is some of the most basic shit out there when it comes to just learning how to think correctly.
If people mastered the skills that I’ve laid out here in this thread, then shit would be a lot better all around.
All comments welcome. I can hear the hair splitters already. There are always the ones who refuse to get the point. They never learn. This thread is for people who want to talk about the importance of properly identifying and distinguishing one object with or from another.
Basic and straightforward. It all hinges on whether the intention to identify was done in good faith. And good faith is not always easy to assertion on basis of the object's sharing the same properties.
Gib:
Spatio temporal qualities may be different as shared, where other’s could be objectives toward identifying less discernible differences.
The result is a function of where one intends to go with it.
The signs are on the wall, and smears your practical way of thinking about it sure enlightening.
However intention is not that basic, it has missing, unknown parts, how many times have I heard a friend say, gosh, I didn’t intend to say that! Then what can you say, -then why did you say it? Maybe intention is not just a simple on spot decision yes go for it. Maybe before clear intention is realized, you have to build up courage based on conviction for it.
Gib, yes, possibly. I might be talking about a pencil, just one pencil, and I might be distinguishing between it’s roundness and it’s yellowness, and then I wouldn’t have to refer to the location of either. Oh but if there were 2 pencils…
Also, I never post in the philosophy section. It’s just too much of a mess there.
Obe, I think that determining good faith is important when you’re deciding whether to believe what someone else is telling you. No doubt about that. But without considering good faith, you can still use my method to decide whether to believe things you’re telling yourself, or that your encountering yourself, or that you reason yourself. There’s only one person in the world who can be sure you’re acting in good faith, and that’s you. I think the method of distinguishing and identifying objects with one another by referencing properties of each is the best way to know you’re actually making distinctions and that’s super important to good reasoning.
I think this is pretty spot on as long as you are contrasting one single thing with another single thing. Where it gets complicated is when you’re distinguishing one thing from all other things in the universe. Like for example, if I wanted to distinguish dog from other things, more or less every quality I list is going to be a quality possessed by something I want to distinguish dogs from, it’s just their common instantiation in the same object that makes the dog unique- and only then when the list of qualities gets very long.
If I describe dogness as anything other than dogness…even if I call it, “that which makes a dog a dog”, then I"m introducing unnecessary ambiguity. I think it’s pretty settled that dogness is dogness.