NearNihil Experience

"My daughter would say a square is just a circle that's been squishered, and she's much smarter than I am.

Cheers, John"

Ah yes. Clear and true insight from a child. I wish I could let my mind be as such. Though I do have a similar belief, that the universe is just an atom in the process of un-squishering. I love it.





Rock

Witt

"My daughter would say a square is just a circle that's been squishered, and she's much smarter than I am.

Cheers, John"

"Ah yes. Clear and true insight from a child. I wish I could let my mind be as such. Though I do have a similar belief, that the universe is just an atom in the process of un-squishering. I love it."

Hi ContraTheos,

I agree..

To squisher or not to squisher, that is the question!

Squishterishionists claim, so I have heard, that there is no circle that can be squishered before it time.

It is self-evident that: If we have time to pee, we must have time to squisher. (silly rabbit)

Witt

John Page

E[]So

There exists a square that is a squishered circle?

Witt

Witt:
Squishterishionists claim, so I have heard, that there is no circle that can be squishered before its time.

John: There exists a square that is a squishered circle?

The indeterminateness of measurement, in terms of real numbers, provides the exception of 'pi' things.

That we cannot determine measurement exactly, by real or complex numbers, is not a deterent to scientific method.

Facts are true whether or not they are subject to measurement.

Witt

John Page

Squishered pi?

Witt

Witt:
Squishterishionists claim, so I have heard, that there is no circle that can be squishered before its time.

John: There exists a square that is a squishered circle.

Perhaps, but, not all (squishered circle)s are squisheradable.



I don't think so.
Squares are those things whose sides are the same as their lengths.

If we do not admit irrational or transendental numbers, we still have squrares, and ..we don't have circles.

Witt

John Page

Yes, one has to squish the definition or splat the concept.

For example:

Take a rod whose length is equal to its diameter. View the rod from end-on and you see a circle (splat view) and from the side you see a circle (squish view).

Cheers, John
(No triangles were harmed in the writing of this post)

Primal

This is an easy distinction to make.

In the case of the dog we simply get rid of the premise "dogs have four legs" due to observation which now supersedes the original definition. Dogs can have more then four legs and the definition is made via strong generalization.

Optical illusions are said not to be real via more data.

Square circles however are another thing entirely, exactly what premise in "A circle may not have sides" must we refute?

The Dog example merely shows a problem with the definition of dog if it were taken as absolute. This is because it's meaning is based in part on empirical facts.


However the definition of circles is a purely conceptual one. There are no real circles floating around to which we refer to. So basically they are their definitions John.

Hence to say there is a square-circle would be a total contradiction unless you mean something else by a circle. And no, such a thing cannot exist.

Same thing with a dog if we strictly meant "four legged creature" by dog. However we do mean "four legged creature" with dog but the animal we actually see, this thus allows for approximation and variation that a more conceptual entity does not.

A better example here would be to say that there is a creature nonphysical, which is not alive but is a dog. Lets say you are reffering to a rock. That would be a contradiction because it would differ so radically from the empirical entity we call dog. Obviously if you call a rock a dog you are either very wrong(if we propose same meaning) or you are going by a different meaning for the same symbol.

The problem is thus that you are focused too much on the technicalities of definition, and ignoring the meanings of them. The differences inherent in them.

The purpose of the definition dog is to refer to the objects we see and call dogs. It is an approximation. The purpose of the definition of square-circle is to explain the concept of a round shape with no sides.

Hence the former can fail if limited to four legged beast. But the latter cannot fail to be without sides less it cease to be a circle at all.

John Page

Hi Primal!

Yes, I agree we can lay down formal definitions and test to determine what objects fall into which categories.

Going back to the OP, though, it seems to me that Meinong's point was perhaps that all definitions are conceptual ones. We put up an ideal and characterize it.

For me, the issue is how the mind creates its ideals and measures reality against them. Square circles and circular squares are both consistent with the category shape, even if they're not "real" shapes (whatever they are).

Cheers, John