• Troodon Roar
    18
    I have developed a view that how unique something is — how different or similar it is from other things — is subjective. This is due to a theory I have come up with on how we form ideas of universals in our minds. Here it is.

    How does one come to form the general notion of “dog”, for example? I think it’s simply that one becomes exposed to two or more dogs in early childhood, and realizes that they have some features in common. The general notion of “dog” is then thought up by the mind to more conveniently think about the certain set of creatures which possess those relevant features.

    Now, let’s imagine a hypothetical scenario wherein a child is only ever exposed to one particular dog in his or her entire life. Moreover, to make it more extreme, let us say that this one dog is the only spatially-extended entity the child ever perceived. The only other entities the child ever perceived were entities lacking spatial extension, such as qualia of odors, tastes, and sounds.

    I argue that this hypothetical child will have no way of conceiving of the general or universal notion of “dog”. From this child’s perspective, the one dog they have experienced has nothing in common with anything else they have ever experienced. Indeed, it is an outlier that sticks out like a sore thumb among all the entities they know about, as it is the only spatially-extended one. But, of course, since the child has only ever experienced one spatially-extended object, he or she has no way of forming a general idea of spatial extension, either. As far as the child is concerned, that particular dog is synonymous with spatial extension, as it is the only spatially-extended thing he or she knows of.

    So my point is that, from this hypothetical child’s perspective, this particular dog is a totally unique entity, as there is nothing in the child’s little mental world that bears any significant resemblances to it.

    But, of course, if that child were to experience more dogs, he or she would realize they have something in common with the original dog, and hence formulate the idea of “dogness”.

    But I argue that, since existence is likely infinite, and since the very nature of infinity precludes the idea that there is a totality of all that exists, which set of entities you choose to compare a selected entity with is ultimately subjective. If you want to, you can compare a particular dog only to things that are very un-dog-like, hence rendering it unique. Or, if you want to, you can also compare it with a panoply of doppelgängers, rendering it indistinguishable from anything else.

    What does everyone else here think?

    (I am aware that my idea of existence being infinite, and thus there not being a totality of all that exists, itself needs to be argued for. I have arguments for it, but I will save them for another future thread).
  • SethRy
    152
    This hypothetical thought experiment might basically, be the reason why British empiricism and mindful rationalism were brought to distinction. Personally, I argue that the 'doginess' of a dog was constructed by our rational capability in the first place. We do not acquire the concept, of what makes a dog - a dog by empirical sense, it is innate. We acquire so by rational thinking — hence why when you see another breed of a dog, you would still understand, as a rational being, that it is indeed, still a dog.

    When pioneering humans back then encountered a dog, indeed, our first intuitions would be our sense of: vision, hearing, touch, and although unusual, taste. But comprehending those characteristics, is farther than just merely sensing it. You are able to make a distinction of one breed of a dog to the other, not because of dissimilar characteristics, but of rational thinking; of comprehension. To add, characteristics of a dog are only humanly descriptions, we do not know for sure it's real.

    Take it from German philosopher Immanuel Kant; There are two realms of definition in the cosmos. The phenomenal realm ( P ), and the noumenal realm ( N ).

    • The cosmos in maximum reality is P+N
    • Things in the phenomenal realm are purely consisting of our humanly descriptions. They are what they are subjectively; especially to human beings.
    • Things in the noumenal world, are 'things-in-themselves'. They are what they are objectively.

    Time and Space, are natural intuitions that cannot be at all sensed. We have the developmental capability to rationalize, which therefore makes us idealize and conceptualize what time and space are really are. They don't have any direct essential nor accidental characteristics, they are by thinking. The reason we know we decay because of time's passage, the reason we know we can't move through a window, is because we are rational beings — we understand concepts that maximize into intuitions and drive our lives.
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.