Ok, that may sound like a really stupid question (or at least it has to a number of the people I’ve asked recently), but it is actually driven by a sincere curiosity of a much more relevant sort.
Dictionary.com’s definitions: 1: “a tube, usually of paper or glass, for sucking up a beverage from a container: to sip lemonade through a straw.”
“You’ve described what it’s ‘made of’, and you’ve described what it ‘does’, but is that what it 'is'? What ‘is’ it?”
Philosophical application: is Reductionism true? 'Is' something equal to the sum of its parts?
Also, if a straw was to be irrevocably bent, would it remain a straw?
6 comments:
I've given this a lot of thought, and I don't believe it's in the physical nature of a straw to be irrevocably bent.
Of course, I should probably play along a bit and at least have at your "reductionism" question. The is yes and no, depending on situation. Yes, reductionism works in most situations; however, let's say you're given a box a legos, you're told that putting the parts together will form a specific object, but you are not told what the object is or what it is supposed to look like. Now, chances are you will assemble something, but it's more than likely that whatever you assemble is not what was "intended" to be assembled. In this case, the summation of parts did not equal the "correct" object. I guess what I'm trying to say that the mechanics we often see as a mathematical formula may have a greater and higher intention or [insert proper noun here] that is not foreseen by number-crunching minds. --I think you can take it from here.
Of course, I could be completely flawed in my chain of thought which could be more than likely...
To your first statement: I agree and currently conclude that when a straw is bent, it no longer remains a straw but instead becomes something like a stick.
Note: I believe it was profound insight that gave that particular detrimental, tooth-decaying candy the title "pixie STICK" and not "pixie Straw". If it is not open ended in a tubular form, it ceases to deserve the name.
Regarding "reductionism": let me see if I understand your position.
Reductionism cannot always be true because the same particular elements may make up a variety of different results if assembled differently?
I think that is correct. Plus, if something is only equal to the sum of its parts, then that would mean that every man would be essentially the same, right?
It seems that the "something more" comes perhaps from the intention of the intelligence by which it is assembled. Each lego-compiled object differs in essence, not by its components, but by its design.
Likewise, one could say that each man differs not because of his material elements, but because of the intention of his Designer.
Whatcha think?
I think you got my point (or in fact you got your original point that I simply reiterated in the form of an answer rather than a question).
Although, I must admit that coming to this conclusion is much more difficult in other situations (especially when the David Hume-like refuse to explanation for the collective of linear dependent beings simply because they believe that explaining the existence of the individual actors accounts for the explanation of the collective and satisfies the Principle of Sufficient Reason, but I can't fault them for that because doing so would mean argumentative suicide. Instead they choose to whine and complain, "Why does everything need an explanation?!" And they say our arguments our flaky?)
Anyway, back to the straw:
"It ceases to deserve the name."
I found that unusually funny for some reason.
However, I have to reply with an unsatisfied, "Sort of." It may not be a straw, but the non-straw only remains a non-straw because it cannot return to it's former straw state by any of it's own devices. It is only under those conditions that the straw is "irrevocably bent." SImply because, if I took a pair of scissors to a pixie stick and cut the ends off it would then again be a straw. I believe it's very important to note that in and of itself a straw that can no longer perform it's function due to it being bent in particular fashion cannot return to functioning state, but an outside actor like myself has the ability to give the straw back it's "straw-ness" as you would put it. Of course, if the straw was cut in half lengthwise that would produce an entirely new dilemma, wouldn't it now? (well not really, but it's fun to think so).
Nice example.
So, let's say that a straw is 'cut in half lengthwise'. In the state of its 'brokenness' if you will, it is not a straw. But if an exterior agent were to fasten it back together by some means, would it then be considered a "new creation"?
Hmmm...theological applications are flying!
Well,
If an outside agent with the wherewithal to reassemble the two halves back together in such a way that it functioned as or more efficient then it previously had done, I would say, "Yes, it is now a new Straw." However, I do still believe that even though it may be reassembled and new, it would still be nothing less or more than a Straw. Although, I will not deny the fact that is indeed a "new creation," but a straw can only serve as an example for so many purposes if you catch my drift.
Post a Comment