The One & the Many??

[Brian Withnell]

If you remove a little of the peel from an orange, it is no longer the same orange, but a different one. The part you removed (the portion of the peel) is either an orange or not an orange, depending on the definition of an orange.

I'm trying to think in what system of logic you are operating. Only a mathematical definition of identity would lead to the conclusion that if a quality (size, shape, location, color, etc.) changes then the object is no longer the same object. I think almost all philosophers since Aristotle have worked with some concept of substance and accidence, in which the change of an accident (perceivable quality) does not affect the underlying substance. Ask them to explain what substance is, and watch the veins pulse.

I think a better answer to the question would be in the realm of analytic philosophy, in which we realize that all definitions are fuzzy. Since words can only be defined by other words, nothing can ever be defined with 100% referential accuracy. For example, can one really distinguish exactly between a string, a cord, and a rope; or between big, huge, and enormous?

You are talking to Brian, husband of Jean, teacher of mathematics. Of course I deal with things mathematically. Philosophy without mathematics is a waste of time. If you don't have the axioms, undefined terms and definitions for a system, you have no logic. I do accept what undefined terms are, but then one has to enumerate the undefined terms ... if "substance" is one of those undefined terms, then a description (not definition) is needed to tell when two things are not the same substance. If you cannot tell when an isometry exists between two things, then it makes no sense in saying the objects are the same substance unless they are the same object without transformation.

Fuzzy philosophy is just an excuse for not stating what the presumptions are. I think of it as either a lack of thorough thought. While it could be that someone hides the axioms of a system because they know those axioms are evil, I tend to think it more the former, though I could easily be convinced some hide the axioms because they know the evil they promulgate (think evolutionist here).

Have pity on my poor wife Jean ... she hit the nail on the head in her reply.

 

[Philip]

At the time of my regeneration, I became a new creature in Christ, and that without the change of any of the cells of my body. Am I the same man I was 30 years ago? Heaven forfend!

I would argue that you are more yourself now than you were then. You are the same person and yet you are not the same person.

 

[Brian Withnell]

Yeah, the Clarkian demand that all terms must be defined in some way is an impossible standard, for we can only define terms with other words, which can only be defined with other words, etc., ad infinitum. There has to be some point at which we have a basic, tacit understanding of terms; otherwise we couldn't speak intelligibly on any subject at all.

Absolutely, we cannot define everything ... that is why in geometry the first thing to be discussed is undefined terms ... line, point, plane ... but even though they are undefined, we discuss what we mean by them without definition, so when we talk about them we have a sense of what is meant. Rigor means having a minimal set of undefined terms, and all other terms are defined in terms of them.

 

[Hungus]

You can also look at it in terms of necessity and sufficiency. So long as no necessary components or qualities are removed or as long as one sufficient cause remains you still have the named event or object, in this case an orange.

 

[Brian Withnell]

At the time of my regeneration, I became a new creature in Christ, and that without the change of any of the cells of my body. Am I the same man I was 30 years ago? Heaven forfend!

I would argue that you are more yourself now than you were then. You are the same person and yet you are not the same person.

Then what is the isometry that connects the two? Being fuzzy is just not a good thing. Being fuzzy let Jonestown happen. Being fuzzy is allowing "No doctrine but Christ" yet not realizing in saying that, it espouses a doctrine.

Part of the problem is that we don't define person, and what that means ... we don't even discuss it much for fear of being heretics. (Do you want to make an assertion that is found later to be the equal of Arius or Pelegius?) Make no mistake, I find myself in the same position, but I certainly also know that I have changed. Only God is unchangeable, immortal, invisible, the only God, wise, eternal, etc. We change. We are like the grass that is here one day and gone the next. A man changes his mind like a woman changes the sheets on a bed.

The philosopher talks about essence (or substance) without defining it. We acknowledge there is some use of the idea ("being of one substance with the Father is confessed weekly by many of orthodox (small "o") faith). Yet we have a very loose idea of what essence is. We only know that the substance of the God is different from the substance of the creation apart from the God/Man Jesus who took upon himself the substance of the creature in order to save us. For in Jesus, the substance of both God and Man are joined without conversion, composition or confusion. What we do not comprehend God accomplished.

-----Added 8/2/2009 at 10:22:39 EST-----

You can also look at it in terms of necessity and sufficiency. So long as no necessary components or qualities are removed or as long as one sufficient cause remains you still have the named event or object, in this case an orange.

A triangle is a polygon (i.e., a closed planar shape consisting of segments such that all segments intersect at both endpoints with exactly two other segments and have no other points in common) with three side.

An equilateral triangle and a right triangle are both triangles, but they are not ever congruent (they are not isometries of each other). That two polygons have three sides is sufficient to prove they are indeed triangles, but it is insufficient to prove they are the same triangle.

If removing a part does not constitute a change, then cut the orange exactly in half, if either half is still the orange, then you have two oranges that are the same orange. Not what I would think even from a sensibility standpoint.

If an orange has part of the peel removed, is it the same orange? Only if we have an understanding of "same" for orange that defines it to be the same.

 

[Philip]

Yet, Brian, even in the change that I too acknowledge, there is a unity of person and a continuity that, we might say, is your "Brian-ness".

I do change, yes, but I also remain. I am not the same person who I was when I first believed, yet, in some way, I am still that person--there's a "Philip-ness" to me that (I would argue) will only grow as I become more like Christ.

 

[Hungus]

You can also look at it in terms of necessity and sufficiency. So long as no necessary components or qualities are removed or as long as one sufficient cause remains you still have the named event or object, in this case an orange.

A triangle is a polygon (i.e., a closed planar shape consisting of segments such that all segments intersect at both endpoints with exactly two other segments and have no other points in common) with three side.

An equilateral triangle and a right triangle are both triangles, but they are not ever congruent (they are not isometries of each other). That two polygons have three sides is sufficient to prove they are indeed triangles, but it is insufficient to prove they are the same triangle.

If removing a part does not constitute a change, then cut the orange exactly in half, if either half is still the orange, then you have two oranges that are the same orange. Not what I would think even from a sensibility standpoint.

If an orange has part of the peel removed, is it the same orange? Only if we have an understanding of "same" for orange that defines it to be the same.

I fail to see how your reply meshes in with my statement that you are replying to. This is because in no way do I see it responding to either necessary or sufficient qualities or causation. The closest I can come is to say that 1/2 of an orange is necessary for an orange but it is not sufficient. In fact 2 x 1/2 of oranges are necessary for an orange but still not sufficient as they could belong to different oranges, however if you had an orange and removed 1/2 of an orange it is no longer an orange as it does not meet the necessary conditions of being an orange.

If, for some strange reason, the quality of being green suddenly became sufficient for being an orange, then I would argue my van is now an orange as it has the colour green. This would still be true no matter how many times you halved it so long as each 1/2 maintained the quality "green". Fortunately however this is not the case and I can drive my van rather than eat it.

 

[Brian Withnell]

Yet, Brian, even in the change that I too acknowledge, there is a unity of person and a continuity that, we might say, is your "Brian-ness".

I do change, yes, but I also remain. I am not the same person who I was when I first believed, yet, in some way, I am still that person--there's a "Philip-ness" to me that (I would argue) will only grow as I become more like Christ.

Yep. We change (usually) very slowly over time, and so we think of ourselves (and those that see us regularly) as being the same person. But I also have to think that someone that only knew us 30 years ago might not know us at all now if we but changed our names.

Some part of us ... I'm not willing to even suggest what ... is the same, or the promise of salvation is truly hollow. How could God save "me" if "me" doesn't exist 30 years from now. But I am left with something for which I do not know the isometry, and therefore it is without any basis. Sad situation.

 

[Hungus]

Some part of us ... I'm not willing to even suggest what ... is the same, or the promise of salvation is truly hollow. How could God save "me" if "me" doesn't exist 30 years from now. But I am left with something for which I do not know the isometry, and therefore it is without any basis. Sad situation.

Brian are you a Monist? Your reliance on the idea of euclidean isometry and disregard of the admittedly weaker, but more useful, path isometry in your statements is what has caused me to question you on this. Even dealing with n dimensional space you will never find any two objects or even the same object at two different points in time that are truly isometric and one of the axis of n space will be different, as a result euclidean isometry is really only useful in the hypothetical or ideal sense and not in general argumentation.

 

[jandrusk]

Well if you change from state "A" to state "B" then how could you remain the same person. I would say that although you are changing state, you are in some sense the same person that is changing over time were actions (both physical & spiritual are being applied to your person to conform you either to the image of Satan or Christ.

 

[Hungus]

I think one of the issues is qualitative versus quantitative. So long as absolute physical remains part of the identity (meaning in this case the same continuity stream of an item gains or loses no mass or matter and maintains the energy in the same quanta levels) then identity cannot be maintained. Anything less than that and you are dealing with a Ship of Theseus problem.

This is why I suggested that qualities be used instead. Humans are dualistic creatures. We have both a spiritual and a physical nature and thanks to the resurrection we will continue to be both physical and spiritual for all of eternity. If we were dealing with the physical absolutes we would have a significant problem because the same body that dies is the same body that will be raised. Now what happens when a christian is eaten by a lion, who is then slaughtered and used for compost to raise a piece of fruit that another christian then eats. In the resurrection who will get those particular atoms?

 

[Philip]

Brian,

If there is not a unity of "Philip-ness" or "Brian-ness", then there would be no "Philip" or "Brian" that we could rationally speak of. We do change, yes, but it's a change toward more of the same, that is, as we grow in Christ, we grow more like ourselves--in Glory we will be ourselves fully because there will be no sin to get in the way.

EDIT: it's amazing that I'm so lucid. I just got my wisdom teeth out and am on pain medications, yet it isn't affecting my think much--God is good.

 

[amishrockstar]

Thought I'd say a quick "thanks" for all the responses on here.
I've been reading the posts and have learned a lot, but at the
same time I'm not confident that I could defend the orange.


The same problems can be multiplied for various physical
and non-physical things, but as I'm a soon-to-be English teacher
I think that the same problems apply to the English language.
We can talk about "English" yet no two people speak "English"
in the same way. The English of today is not the English of
Shakespeare's day, yet we consider both forms of the language
to be English. Of course we qualify English in some ways:
Old English, Middle English, Black Vernacular English, etc.

So does that mean that we need to always keep before us
the idea that the "one" is not the "many" and vice versa?

Do we define the "one" in terms of the many and vice versa?

Is that how the trinity can explain the problem of the "one and
the many"? The Father, Son, & H. Spirit are not to be confused
with each other, yet they are at the same time defined in terms
of one another??

Thanks again for all your input,
Matthew

@Bob
It sounds like you're saying that we have an essence
that transcends our physical being; therefore, we ought
to be defined as "made in the image of God." Can you
further unpack how being created in the image of God
solves the issues of the "one and the many"?

Was that "image" distorted or destroyed at the Fall?
Can "being created in the image of God" be altered in
any way?

Since we are also created as physical beings, shouldn't
we be able --at some level-- to define "humanness" in
terms of our physical bodies?

Thanks again