Quote:
Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas  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.
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. |
I guess I wasn't clear, my speculation is thus: It is the consequences, and "behaviors" we are trying to isolate with terminology, not the things!
We choose to separate animal from rock, because the behavior of rocks and animals, their nutritive value and other consequential aspects of these groups are what we are "after."
If there was a rock chasing me I'd think in animal terms, not rock terms about the situation. I'd say later "Man! did you see that crazy critter, it looked just like a rock! But it wanted to eat me, the sneaky bastard!"