|
|
|
|
|
by jiggawatts
921 days ago
|
|
The issue I've always had with this kind of reductionist philosophy is that there is a very clear and obvious continuum between "table" and "not table". At no point can everyone clearly agree what is and isn't a table. Sure, most people would agree that an assembled IKEA "LISABO" table is a table. Okay.. what if one of the legs is removed and it is sideways? What if one leg is removed but it is propped up with a pile of boxes? What if it's intact as designed, but slightly scuffed? Deeply gouged? Horribly worn to the point of having holes through the top but still able to support plates and cutlery? What if all four legs are also broken, but it's still serviceable as a Japanese-style low table? What if atom-by-atom, we erode its form until nobody alive agrees that it is a table? What if someone then changes their mind? This is the problem: all forms of matter, unless specified down to individual atoms, are just social conventions -- inconsistent ones at that! |
|