Quote:
|
These two do not contradict each other. Our classifications both derive from objective differences, and are conveniences. Most categories are really based on the particular relevant consequential aspects of things rather than the things themselves.
|
No, they do not necessarily contradict one another. However, we have established (though you may disagree) that objective similarities and differences can be found among any number of things. Given any two things, we can find objective similarities and differences. I could note a million similarities between a rock and a cat, and I can note a million differences between two cats. So, out of convenience, it seems, we select particular objective similarities and differences to focus on, while we could have just as easily, and with as much 'truthiness' in our description, focused on different objective similarities/differences.
Quote:
|
We are not concerned with every detail of any given thing at every given time. Linguistic categories serve to separate the irrelevant aspects of from the relevant ones, as pertains to any given statement.
|
Right, but when did you decide to call X a cat and Y a rock? Maybe it was a good decision originally, but the point is that you, and I, probably have not spent much time considering whether it should be cat or rock. The point of the thread is to consider how, if at all, this way we come to name and describe has influenced our thought and philosophical considerations.