A part is a part of a total and not a part of a whole, for wholes do not have parts.
A total is a total of parts or a summation of parts.
A whole identifies a part, and hence identifies a total.
A total is no closer to the whole, than a part is to the whole.
Wholes are not summatable.
Parts are summatable by definition.
Where there is no whole, there is no part. That is, ‘parts’ cannot identify a whole, and where there is no whole that is identified, then, there are no parts.
Jesus, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more useless post. I can only make this face while reading it:
Haha, I am not so sure of the point of the post as well. Anyway,
I would have a problem with the first predicate - Why can’t whole’s have parts?
because where would they fit? DUH
JohnJones is an academic. That means that he thinks arbitrary and useless distinctions are philosophy.
Philosophically, I’m interested in anything thought provoking. To be fair, Logic and semantics do interest me, but only really in the sense that it is a tool or format for actual philosophical discussion.
So that’s why for me it makes perfect sense to say ‘two halves make a whole’ or whatever.
There’s a guy in a room. The room has four walls, a ceiling and a floor. It is sealed tight. No windows, no door, no vents, no ducts, no nothing.
The guy has a saw, and there’s a wooden table in the middle of the floor.
How does he get out…?
He just walks through any wall due to transmigration of the soul. What kind of saw?
A truck crashes through the room, leaving a gaping hole.
What are the walls made of?
Wall.
No. The saw is a bog-standard saw, cheap steel.
No. The room is truck-proof.
Okay, what are the floor and ceiling made of? Let me guess: floor and ceiling respectively.
Totally right.
Tab and all-------------you are great.
Then I’m going to plump for the obvious: he saws through the floor or the ceiling.
That’s a great answer. Not the right answer, but great.
I’ll give you a clue, the answer is really fucking stupid, and it is to do with the theme of this thread title.
A part is a part of a total and not a part of a whole, for wholes do not have parts.
A total is a total of parts or a summation of parts.
A whole identifies a part, and hence identifies a total.
A total is no closer to the whole, than a part is to the whole.
Wholes are not summatable.
Parts are summatable by definition.
Where there is no whole, there is no part. That is, ‘parts’ cannot identify a whole, and where there is no whole that is identified, then, there are no parts.
“What about if we add an “ASS” to every “WHOLE” in those sentences?”
Ah, I suppose it’s something to do with sawing the table into parts and then creating a ‘(w)hole’ out of them.
There are two men in a boat with a packet of cigarettes but no matches. How do they manage to smoke?
He builds a door with the table.