Read Online Outer Limits of Reason by Noson S. Yanofsky - Free Book Online
Authors: Noson S. Yanofsky
Ads: Link
these similar stimuli the âship of Theseus.â Since we all agree with this naming convention, we do not commit each other to insane asylums. Nevertheless, the existence of the ship of Theseus is an illusion.
There are times where we are taught exact definitions and we can answer all questions based on the definition. For example, we are taught that driving more than 65 miles per hour is speeding. So if people drive 67 miles per hour, they are speeding; if they drive 64 miles an hour, they are not. We are very clear about this. However, for most physical objects, no objective definitions exist.
One can have a similar discussion on questions of aesthetics. Most people will agree that there are no correct answers when it comes to questions of taste. What is beautiful to one person is ugly to another. The present generation of art connoisseurs would spend millions of dollars for any sketch by Vincent van Gogh. In his own lifetime, Van Gogh was ignored and his paintings were not worth a pittance. Which generation has had the correct opinion about Van Goghâs work? There is no answer to this question because there is no such thing as objective aesthetics. Itâs a matter of taste. Similarly, whether changing a plank of a ship changes the ship cannot be given a definitive answer because there is no such thing as an objective ship of Theseus.
One can safely argue with what is posed here and claim that objects really do have an existence outside of the human mind and that what children are learning to do is classify and name those entities. They are learning to associate names of entities with physical stimuli. Weathered, rotting wood that looks like a ship in the port of Athens should be associated with the âship of Theseus.â This ideology might be called extreme Platonism (see figure 3.1 ). Classical Platonism is the belief that abstract entities have real existence outside of the human mind. The number 3 really exists. There is an exact idea when one refers to the U.S. government. An idea of a chair exists. However, classical Platonism takes no stand about concrete physical entities. In contrast, extreme Platonism is the belief that even a concrete physical object has some type of unchanging platonic entity associated with it. To someone who maintains this position, some platonic notion of âship-of-Theseus-nessâ exists and when a question is posed about a change to the ship of Theseus, all one has to do is somehow connect to the platonic notion and see if the changed ship still satisfies the definition. Extreme Platonism demands a fairly advanced metaphysics, and we cannot really say that as metaphysics, it is true or false. It is impossible to show that no such abstract entity exists. Nevertheless, as with all metaphysical notions, there is no real reason to posit such an existence. 4 If you claim that a name or a definition of an object is some type of âtagâ on the object, then we can ask where the tag is. Why is it that people disagree so vociferously about the tag on the ship of Theseus?
Figure 3.1
Different philosophical schools of thought
In this chapter, I am promoting an idea that might be termed extreme nominalism. The philosophical position of classic nominalism is the belief that abstract entities really do not exist outside the human mind. To a nominalist, abstract ideas like the number 3, the idea of the U.S. government, and the idea of a chair or âchairnessâ do not really exist outside the minds of those who discuss them. Have you ever met a 3? Can you stub your toe against a 3? Can you point to the U.S. government? A classic nominalist would say that these entities only exist in the human mind. Since we share a similar education and social structures, we can banter about these different names and concepts with our neighbors. However, a classical nominalist does not have a position on the question of concrete physical entities.
Extreme nominalism takes
There are times where we are taught exact definitions and we can answer all questions based on the definition. For example, we are taught that driving more than 65 miles per hour is speeding. So if people drive 67 miles per hour, they are speeding; if they drive 64 miles an hour, they are not. We are very clear about this. However, for most physical objects, no objective definitions exist.
One can have a similar discussion on questions of aesthetics. Most people will agree that there are no correct answers when it comes to questions of taste. What is beautiful to one person is ugly to another. The present generation of art connoisseurs would spend millions of dollars for any sketch by Vincent van Gogh. In his own lifetime, Van Gogh was ignored and his paintings were not worth a pittance. Which generation has had the correct opinion about Van Goghâs work? There is no answer to this question because there is no such thing as objective aesthetics. Itâs a matter of taste. Similarly, whether changing a plank of a ship changes the ship cannot be given a definitive answer because there is no such thing as an objective ship of Theseus.
One can safely argue with what is posed here and claim that objects really do have an existence outside of the human mind and that what children are learning to do is classify and name those entities. They are learning to associate names of entities with physical stimuli. Weathered, rotting wood that looks like a ship in the port of Athens should be associated with the âship of Theseus.â This ideology might be called extreme Platonism (see figure 3.1 ). Classical Platonism is the belief that abstract entities have real existence outside of the human mind. The number 3 really exists. There is an exact idea when one refers to the U.S. government. An idea of a chair exists. However, classical Platonism takes no stand about concrete physical entities. In contrast, extreme Platonism is the belief that even a concrete physical object has some type of unchanging platonic entity associated with it. To someone who maintains this position, some platonic notion of âship-of-Theseus-nessâ exists and when a question is posed about a change to the ship of Theseus, all one has to do is somehow connect to the platonic notion and see if the changed ship still satisfies the definition. Extreme Platonism demands a fairly advanced metaphysics, and we cannot really say that as metaphysics, it is true or false. It is impossible to show that no such abstract entity exists. Nevertheless, as with all metaphysical notions, there is no real reason to posit such an existence. 4 If you claim that a name or a definition of an object is some type of âtagâ on the object, then we can ask where the tag is. Why is it that people disagree so vociferously about the tag on the ship of Theseus?
Figure 3.1
Different philosophical schools of thought
In this chapter, I am promoting an idea that might be termed extreme nominalism. The philosophical position of classic nominalism is the belief that abstract entities really do not exist outside the human mind. To a nominalist, abstract ideas like the number 3, the idea of the U.S. government, and the idea of a chair or âchairnessâ do not really exist outside the minds of those who discuss them. Have you ever met a 3? Can you stub your toe against a 3? Can you point to the U.S. government? A classic nominalist would say that these entities only exist in the human mind. Since we share a similar education and social structures, we can banter about these different names and concepts with our neighbors. However, a classical nominalist does not have a position on the question of concrete physical entities.
Extreme nominalism takes
Similar Books
