• Agent Smith
    9.5k
    The words "similarity" and "difference" need no introduction.

    A theory of mine:

    Need to be able to see differences: Predators are usually different (being able to see dissimilarities saves lives)

    Need to be able to see similarities: Mates are similar (being able to see similarities ensures a new generation)

    Thus being able to see differences and similarities (both) are evolutionarily beneficial (for survival).

    However, I have a feeling that there's an asymmetry here: one of these abilities is more important than the other. My reason: philosophers make a big deal of nuances and subtleties which are, to my reckoning, basically minute, almost imperceptible, infinitesimal differences that are, despite their "size", extremely important to get to the bottom of things.

    An example:

    ↪baker The key difference is that a hinge proposition is not to be doubted.

    An assumption might be subjected to subsequent rejection, as in a reductio argument. An axiom is taken as self-evident.

    That the bishop stays on the same colour is neither subject to refutation nor self-evident, but it is a hinge for the purposes of playing chess.

    A small distinction, but worth noting
    Banno

    A penny for your thoughts...
  • Hermeticus
    181
    A theory of mine in correspondence to "Similarity":

    If we are to recognize evolution as progressive and self-improving, we must realize that even if a species is on a dying branch of the tree, it is connected to what is the essential pillar of life, a stem that leads all the way down to the most basic principle of life.

    At the bottom of this evolutional history, we theoretically must find what is the transition between inanimate matter and living organisms. Of course, the details of this transitions are a mistery - but I propose that before "unliving" can go to "living", inanimate must first become animate.

    How can something inanimate become animate? By outside force. And these forces that do animate are a fundamental part of the universe; gravity, electromagnetism, strong force and weak force. What happens when these forces do their work is that the object that is being worked on inevitably has to react. As per the fundamental laws of the universe, the energy radiating from the universe does not get lost, instead it transforms the objects it interacts with in one way or the other.

    If we inspect the interval at which this work occurs, we realize it is cyclical in nature due to the makeup of the universe (think orbitals). This means that the reaction, the transformation that occurs due to the laws of physics, occurs cyclical as well - a feature apparently inherent in life. This continuous process eventually leads to higher "energy levels" which result in ever more complex life-forms.

    With such an understanding, phrases like
    "As above, so below" or even "God created man in his own image" may display a great deal of profound understanding.

    Man:God = Life:Cosmos
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.