Re: SUO: The Story So Far
"John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
>Chris,
>
>These aren't inconsistent:
Yes, they are.
> >There a number of well-known positions that are inconsistent (e.g.
> >Perdurantism and Endurantism - vide Statue and Clay example).
>
>This is the point that I was making in the discussion about
>Whitehead's process approach. We have two informal English
>words "statue" and "clay", which people have been using for
>centuries without getting into trouble.
>
>If perhaps one definition creates an inconsistency, that is
>simply a problem with that definition.
Neither of them is inconsistent with the informal notions, but they
both map those informal words into more highly organized conceptual
systems in ways which are, on their face, inconsistent with each
other (though maybe interconvertible.)
>See Whitehead's
>terminology:
>
> http://www.bestweb.net/~sowa/ontology/anw_obj.htm
>
>According to that view (which I endorse), all objects are
>"recurring event types", which result from certain causally
>determined processes that result in some aspects (called
>objects) remaining recognizable for longer periods of time
>than others.
Fine; then you endorse a form of perdurantism (which some say was
virtually invented by Whitehead). Once you do that, all is clear, I
agree, and you can translate everything into your (our :-) viewpoint.
However, there are people - good men, of intellect and integrity -
who feel strongly that a different viewpoint is more correct and
satisfactory, and prefer to adopt that other one. What are we going
to do? Legislate for one side or the other, and delare that one to be
'standard' ? It is no use protesting that our view is consistent with
informal usage: they are *both* consistent with informal usage
(though the endurantist view probably has the best claim to be in
conformity with the ontological presumptions of English syntax - case
grammar and all that - so this card is a rather dangerous one to
play.)
>The word "clay" describes one kind of recurring event type,
>and the word "statue" describes another kind. Those two kinds
>happen to have a large overlap. In particular, the clay may
>persist for a longer period of time than the statue. (In 4D
>terminology, the space-time region of the clay includes the
>space-time region of the statue.)
>
>But there is no inconsistency. We can use the ordinary English
>words without any trouble and relate them to various formal
>definitions, which can also be stated without inconsistency.
>Neither the English words nor their definition in terms of
>W's process ontology are causing any trouble. The main
>source of confusion seems to be the words "perdurantist" and
>"endurantist".
There is no confusion arising from those words, but one needs to
acknowledge the fact that people do not agree on these issues, and in
particular, a lot of people strongly disagree with Whitehead; and we
need to do something about those folk. We could try shooting them, I
guess, but it seems rather drastic.
Pat
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes