Sunday, February 20, 2005

I have a quick question to the group: ME would say that there is material that makes up clay, and the same material can make up a statue, as well as any other forseeable combination. Takeover Theory says that the dominant sort that the matter is in is statue. A Cohabitationalist would say that both clay and statue exist, as well as any other forseeable things. So would Cohabitation just be a combination of ME and Takeover Theory [ME + TT = CoH]? Would like to hear what others think about this. I was thinking of this when I was thinking of support for TT over ME.
Now for an argument against ME. I am a Takeover Theory person because I like it the most, I find it the most logical to use. ME will argue that since the matter is there, then the thing exists. Material constitution does not define a thing entirely. A disected worm in a highschool biology class might still have all of it's parts, but that is not the same worm it was when it came out of the ground. I am interested to hear an ME reply.

2 Comments:

Blogger Sam Lehman said...

Two things. First, yeah, I'd say Cohabitation draws from concepts espoused by both TT and ME, but its not like these are elemental concepts. Each of those draws ideas form reality and philosphy alike. It would be really difficult to create a theory that had absolutely no foundation in earlier philosophies.
Now the second bit. Yes, As I've said in class, ME doesn't seem easy to grasp. It's not really intuitive much of the time. I still don't think that means ME is wrong though. But I have a question for takeover theorists. The argument made by the debtor in the debtor's paradox seems to be that of a Takeover Theorist. What sort of response would a TT make to my claim that TT is just as illogical, under certain circumstances, as ME is?

9:45 AM  
Blogger Russell said...

I didn't say that ME is illogical, just not the one I agree with the most. I don't think that the response given by the debtor in the Debtor's Paradox is that of TT but of ME. He argues that because he has lost a few particles that he is a new man. TT would say that he is still of the same sort he was last week since no major changes have occured (like losing an arm). ME would say that since the debtor has lost some of the original matter that made him up that he is a new sum of particles and therefore a new debtor guy. I have not said that this is illogical, I just do not agree that the debtor has changed enough to be called a new person or whatever other thing you want him to be called.

9:42 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home