No. Just because it’s a mute subject is no reason not to discuss it.It’s not mute to everyone.
I’m confused, you think this is even more trivial and obvious? How so?
I don’t see it as moot, but rather very relevant to a great many conflicts throughout society.
And I agree with fuse, that this is an issue of “identity”.
No, it is more profound and subtle. The more a particular is understood as the member of a set, the more tenuous such membership becomes. Ultimately, all or most floating things can be included within the genera 'ship' That makes sense, since ships 2000 years ago were vastly different from what we could understand by seeing a both back than. Another thing about that is dealing with meaning. First of all what is a ship, and what is a boat? Will the Greek for each of those types have correspondence to their traits in the Ancient Greek? This goes hand in glove with Reasonable's linguistic analysis, but little with the analogy with functional evolution,in the sense of dna going through changes. It is more a structural development, and evolution in this sense has a different sense of evolution.
Moot as having been solved solved by materialists and formalists, Divergent camps have not come to a closure, whether it is an unsolved paradox, just as Meno's paradox has been solved, and yet there are people who still view it terms of having not sufficiently been solved.
The paradoxical nature of the theory of identity has been supplanted by the theory of contradiction, and it is only since the phenomenological reduction that , the reduction can be interpreted in view of the principle of identity, an identity reduced, differentially, yet sustain, or bracket it's identity. There is no disagreement on that.
So what is their solution?
The solution has been established per this forum, and that probably has some correlators out there : The Kantian synthesis of merging the two. The ship is a ship is a ship. It is both the same, and at the same time different from before it changed. The important point is to keep up the continuity because if not, and too many stages are lost, after a while it will become unrecognizable. So the synthesis is dependent on recognition. I will look back on Your exhaustively written 'facial recognition blog(if i find it) and try to connect it / paradoxically to the matter at hand.
How does that not break the Law of Identity? “A” is not equal to “A” any more.
But that part seems to be saying that Identity is merely a subjective issue. The question is asking for the objective truth, not merely what someone happens to observe.
I am not seeing a solution in this (much less The solution).
Again identity does not depend on seeing contradiction. It depends on understanding how contradiction through dialectic. This is not The solution, as probably, there is no solution, apart from the realization of it’s basic contradictory languages, one ontological and formal, the other phenomenological and inductive. Back 2000 years ago, there was no recognition of this contradiction.
The law of identity is not 'broken' by the law of contradiction. It is only a different way of understanding + looking at it. One plus one may not necessarily = two anymore. i am not a mathematician, though. So i am putting myself out here.
Similarly, in this scheme, there is variable differentiation between objective and subjective, contextual interpretations. They have become fluid as opposed to static concepts.
I can’t understand either of those sentences, sorry.
Okay, that sounds far more on track. But at the end of that track, is “The Solution” that I never hear anyone even mention.
Well, there, you seem to be just mushing concerns together and asserting that “it’s all okay, just live with it.” When one plus one isn’t two, you have a problem. Something is being ignored and presumed.
Well, they might have been accepted as “fluid” rather than “static”, but I see that as more of just a denial of both rather than a solution for either.
“A=B, but B<>A and that’s just okay.”
…no. It isn’t okay. It is being mindless and more easily manipulated.
I will take the second paraphrase, because it may be the essence of the argument, and since You did agree with most of it minus The Solution, You hinted at it when You implied that it is not the solution, meaning the general solution and again to loosely paraphrase You, not The Solution. This had an implication of differentiating the general from the specific solution, the solution being this particular paradox on hand. It is not at all clear, and this is my point, that the author of the paradox intended to have these two types of arguments borne out of what i fell is a unitary exploration. In the manner, of Meno, for instance, where knowledge is shown to be an intrinsic unlearned quality, rather than an extrinsic one, the proof was deemed satisfactory for that time.
The proof satisfied the ontological argument, and that sufficed. This is not the Solution, but it was, at the time, for those inquiring minds around that time. The Solution You are talking about, is not merely the solution to this paradox, but the wider all encompassing extension of that through the annals of time.
Wait, what “proof”?
Sorry for being slow following you.
Wait, what “proof”?
Sorry for being slow following you.[/quote
It is my fault. I am the one who is sorry. The proof for the existence of inherent knowledge. I am being too fast, and somewhat presumptive.
Oh. It was actually a hypothesis for inherent knowledge, not a proof. But I still don’t see the connection. What does inherent knowledge have to do with any of this?
[size=85]{{the more I read of the Greeks, the more I wonder how they ever got out of the caves}} [/size]
James, the solution might be dependent on which practical consequence you’re looking for out of holding one position on something or another and realizing that knowing the ins and outs of both sides of some given paradox is a good way to exercise the brain toward greater efficiency in choosing which beliefs to hold to attain which consequences. You could be a guy who argues it’s not the same ship, or a guy who argues that it is, and depending on conditions having to do with which outcome you desire then either position might work. That’s I think the closest thing to an objective truth that you’re gonna get with some paradoxes. That being the knowledge of where all the traps are in each side of the debate.
Once again, you are hinting at The Solution. But know that I am not speaking of either of the common sides as being “The Solution”, nor any meshing of the two into some kind of clouded conflation.
It doesn’t really surprise me all that much that the Greeks didn’t see the issue and problem with such a “paradox”. It disappoints me far more than even the “Enlightenment Era” Europeans apparently did see it either. But what disturbs me is that it seems that even now, the simple “truth” of the whole thing doesn’t come to mind for those addressing the question. Although I can see how not knowing that solution is related to the inspiration for people to question if “2+2=4” or if “A is A”.
The post-modern West is all about manufactured confusion, so I can expect many people to be confused on every issue. But when looking through recorded history, this one issue, which is related to very many others, seems to have never been written… alternatively, erased.
In a way, the solution is really pretty simple, but not immediately apparent. I personally wouldn’t even bother with the whole thing except that I wondered about the ILP crew in particular and their views as to why the records don’t show any solution. Wiki merely states that “some people have thought this and others thought that”. But each of those proposed solutions are not really the answer and provably so.
Is Man being kept stupid as the story of Babylon would indicate? Or is it that homosapian just really never has been anything else? I have seen some serious brilliance in homosapian, it is a little hard to believe that no one before 200 years ago, was respectably intelligent. And it would seem in the field of philosophy, perhaps has never been so. It makes me suspect that those Babylonians must have had some really serious insights going on.
What do you mean “the solution”? I mean, you can define “this particular ship” in whatever way you want, and in the end all the problems that come along with and kind of identity theory are still there. Now you can say, “it’s the same ship even though the parts are different” maybe because that makes it worth more and you want to sell it, or you can say, “this isn’t the same ship, it’s all made of different parts” if this made it worth less, but equally durable and you wanted to get it cheaper. Like when you get a parts gun from an old war. It’s not worth as much as one that’s got parts all from the same company, but it shoots just the same in most cases. Either way, there’s some rightness and some wrongness to each position, so it’s like you gotta choose which confusion serves your interests the best.
You step even closer to “The Solution”.
Can you generalize all of that into something more abstract and concise? You might consider the words “ontology” and “truth” in the explanation.
Everything. Inherent or intrinsic knowledge is distinct ontologically from extrinsic knowledge, just as the question of what a ship is differs from it’s descriptions, of the various acquired parts, changes and additions. The ship in the former definition is not a hypothetical ship, but a model of a ship which fits all or most known ships. the inherency of the form of a ship is what they are after, and Meno’s questioning makes clear, that formal arrangements are as such.
Again, James, whether it is a proof or a hypothesis is to beg the question, because ontologically a hypothesis or a thesis, if formally inherent, is proof in per qua. It is by the virtue of having been thought. this is the ontological proof for any formal arrangement, of which a ship is one example.
I agree with Your analysis that the Greeks and Enlightenment did not offer The Solution, and if not, a modern Solution can not be, but a synthetic one. Without a combination the solution would be subject to either one, or the other. A descriptive model given by Reasonable cannot be given with an ontological prescription, other than synthetically. You are affirming and denying the same concept. Or are You? The Greek dialectical model can not be left out, since it’s part and parcel of the argument’s essential architecture.
I don’t think the point involved what a “ship” is, but rather what “the same ship” means. At what point is a ship, not the same ship?
It is a logical derivation based upon stated premises. But one of the premises was a presumption, that happened to have been incorrect. Thus the premises were hypotheses that the logic implied to be in error. But rather than reject the premises, they reject any objections despite a notably questionable conclusion. Rather than say, “there must be something wrong with my premises”, they said, “reality is paradoxical/irrational”.
It is much like current fantasy-physics wherein if the logic from premises leads to conclusion that 2+2=3, then it is promoted that the premises and the conclusion are correct and the reality is that 2+2=3. It is an effort to accept theory or hypothesis as truth and disregard any and all objections: “If our theory logically concludes that reality is broken, then reality is broken because our premises are unquestionable”.
What?? That sounds oddly East Indian, “If it hasn’t been known before, it cannot be known ever.”
What is the rationale that leads to “a modern solution can not be”?
There is a third option (always).