Is nothing only perceived as blackness, or is it actually blackness?

[untermensche]

I agree ideas can be abstract.

But not objects.

Objects can have abstract ideas associated with them, but that doesn't make the object abstract.

As far as the mere recognition of an abstract idea.

I don't know if that requires an act of abstraction in itself.

What is "an object"? "Object" is probably the most abstract concept ever!

Objects are clearly seen in the world. Their distinctness from other objects is many times entirely apparent. One apple is clearly distinct from another.

Concepts are ideas that can be abstract.

 

[Juma]

What is "an object"? "Object" is probably the most abstract concept ever!

Objects are clearly seen in the world. Their distinctness from other objects is many times entirely apparent. One apple is clearly distinct from another.

Concepts are ideas that can be abstract.

So the apple disappears when you make mashed apples?

 

[untermensche]

Objects are clearly seen in the world. Their distinctness from other objects is many times entirely apparent. One apple is clearly distinct from another.

Concepts are ideas that can be abstract.

So the apple disappears when you make mashed apples?

Yes.

The apple is gone.

You won't see it again.

 

[Juma]

So the apple disappears when you make mashed apples?

Yes.

The apple is gone.

You won't see it again.

The apple isnt gone, is has just changed form.

 

[untermensche]

Yes.

The apple is gone.

You won't see it again.

The apple isnt gone, is has just changed form.

The apple is the form. It is what the human finds in nature.

Of course the apple can be transformed by force but then it is something else. A crushed apple.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The apple isnt gone, is has just changed form.

The apple is the form. It is what the human finds in nature.

Of course the apple can be transformed by force but then it is something else. A crushed apple.

A ripe apple is an apple but a crushed apple is not an apple. Language can trick us in this respect.

We can think of an apple as "form", but essentially the form of our perception, perception of the reality beyond our subjective experience. But usually we think of the apple as the real something that is effectively beyond our experience and there we can't say it's pure form. In fact, we tend to think of an apple as something that gathers together a set of properties, some of them not form but substance. This may be more than we know about the real world but that's what we tend to believe an apple to be.
EB

 

[untermensche]

A ripe apple is an apple but a crushed apple is not an apple. Language can trick us in this respect.

We can think of an apple as "form", but essentially the form of our perception, perception of the reality beyond our subjective experience. But usually we think of the apple as the real something that is effectively beyond our experience and there we can't say it's pure form. In fact, we tend to think of an apple as something that gathers together a set of properties, some of them not form but substance. This may be more than we know about the real world but that's what we tend to believe an apple to be.
EB

If we talk about the concept of "apple" it gets very complicated.

That's why I talk about an apparent apple.

It has a specific form and specific features.

I can roll it across the floor.

 

[Juma]

The apple is the form. It is what the human finds in nature.

Of course the apple can be transformed by force but then it is something else. A crushed apple.

A ripe apple is an apple but a crushed apple is not an apple. Language can trick us in this respect.

An apple fallen from a tree i still an apple.
If someone steps on it its still an apple, even if crushed.

 

[DBT]

A crushed apple is not the same as a whole apple. If it's badly crushed it may unrecognisable as an object we call an apple.

 

[Juma]

A crushed apple is not the same as a whole apple..

Of course not, a red apple is not the same as a green apple. A Granny Smith isnt a Fuji.

An apple doesnt necessary mean "a whole apple".

An object is referred to as an apple when the intention us to treat the object as an apple.

A stone is a chair if my intention is to treat it as a chair.

The object is an object if I intend to treat it like an object.

 

[DBT]

An apple doesnt necessary mean "a whole apple".

This is getting a bit pedantic...but the wording 'an apple' implies a whole apple. We would't refer to a pile of mashed apple in a dish as 'an apple' - or to a glass of apple juice as 'an apple.'

 

[Juma]

An apple doesnt necessary mean "a whole apple".

This is getting a bit pedantic...but the wording 'an apple' implies a whole apple. We would't refer to a pile of mashed apple in a dish as 'an apple' - or to a glass of apple juice as 'an apple.'

So the mashed apple under your shoe isnt an apple?

 

[DBT]

This is getting a bit pedantic...but the wording 'an apple' implies a whole apple. We would't refer to a pile of mashed apple in a dish as 'an apple' - or to a glass of apple juice as 'an apple.'

So the mashed apple under your shoe isnt an apple?

It's a mashed apple. The qualifier 'an' as in ''an apple'' implies a whole, undamaged apple.

 

[Juma]

So the mashed apple under your shoe isnt an apple?

It's a mashed apple. The qualifier 'an' as in ''an apple'' implies a whole, undamaged apple.

So any "damage" results in an apple lost?
That is obvious not true.

 

[untermensche]

An apple fallen from a tree i still an apple.
If someone steps on it its still an apple, even if crushed.

It is not the same apple. The first apple had a specific and observable shape and specific properties.

It is a different apple since it has a different shape and texture and different properties, like I can't roll it across the floor anymore.

If I chop up a wooden chair and burn it and then hand you the ashes. Have I given you a chair?

This is similar to the idea that a person can't place their leg into the same river twice.

 

[Juma]

An apple fallen from a tree i still an apple.
If someone steps on it its still an apple, even if crushed.

It is not the same apple. The first apple had a specific and observable shape and specific properties.

It is a different apple since it has a different shape and texture and different properties, like I can't roll it across the floor anymore.

If I chop up a wooden chair and burn it and then hand you the ashes. Have I given you a chair?

This is similar to the idea that a person can't place their leg into the same river twice.

An apple doesnt stop being an apple when it gets damaged.

If I cremated my father and keeps him on the mantelpiece isnt it my father?

Your cells are replaced during hour lifetime isnt it still you?

Objects arent as easy as you believe.

 

[untermensche]

It is not the same apple. The first apple had a specific and observable shape and specific properties.

It is a different apple since it has a different shape and texture and different properties, like I can't roll it across the floor anymore.

If I chop up a wooden chair and burn it and then hand you the ashes. Have I given you a chair?

This is similar to the idea that a person can't place their leg into the same river twice.

An apple doesnt stop being an apple when it gets damaged.

If I cremated my father and keeps him on the mantelpiece isnt it my father?

Your cells are replaced during hour lifetime isnt it still you?

Objects arent as easy as you believe.

An apple stops being the same apple if it's shape changes. Shape is a feature of a specific observable apple. If it's shape changes enough it stops being an apple at all.

 

[Juma]

An apple doesnt stop being an apple when it gets damaged.

If I cremated my father and keeps him on the mantelpiece isnt it my father?

Your cells are replaced during hour lifetime isnt it still you?

Objects arent as easy as you believe.

An apple stops being the same apple if it's shape changes. Shape is a feature of a specific observable apple. If it's shape changes enough it stops being an apple at all.

"Enough"? Are you kidding?

We doesnt categorize apples as apples from shape but from wether it makes sense to call them apples.

 

[fromderinside]

An apple stops being the same apple if it's shape changes. Shape is a feature of a specific observable apple. If it's shape changes enough it stops being an apple at all.

"Enough"? Are you kidding?

We doesnt categorize apples as apples from shape but from wether it makes sense to call them apples.

I think we've fallen off the applecart. Isn't this OP about thingness and existence?

 

[DBT]

It's a mashed apple. The qualifier 'an' as in ''an apple'' implies a whole, undamaged apple.

So any "damage" results in an apple lost?
That is obvious not true.

No, just a change in the condition of the apple. First a whole apple - an apple - then a crushed apple (being specific). Just a distinction between its condition.