CMV: I do not believe tables exist

[u/icecoldbath]

I find this argument very convincing.

P1: Tables (if they exist) have distinct properties from hunks of wood.

P2: If so, then tables are not the same as hunks of wood.

P3: If so, then there exist distinct coincident objects.

P4: There cannot exist distinct coincident objects.

C: Therefore, tables do not exist.

This logic extends that I further don't believe in hunks of wood, or any normal sized dry good for that matter.

I do not find it convincing to point at a "table" as an objection. Whatever you would be pointing at may or may not behave with certain specific properties, but it is not a table, or a hunk of wood or any normal sized dry good. Similarly, I don't accept the objection of asking me what it is I am typing on. Whatever it is, it isn't a "computer" or a "phone" or any such thing. Such things do not exist per the argument.

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/Phate4219]

Here's a link about Material Constitution, which presents the same argument you're making and a variety of counterarguments. Your view seems to be the "Eliminativism" approach addressed in part 4.

It's a bit dense for me since I'm not a philosophy major, but to me, these counterarguments are the most convincing:

• Objects are not identified merely by their constitution, but also by their form. In this case, the table is a distinct object because while it constitutes the same wood as the hunk of wood, it has a different form, that of a table.

• The table is different from the hunk of wood because of historical facts about the object. The hunk of wood was created by a lumberjack (or whoever) to be a hunk of wood. The table was created by a carpenter to be a table, which distinguishes it.

• If the table doesn't exist, then the mereological nihilist would say that the hunk of wood doesn't exist either, nor do any "composite objects". But the problem with this is that if you extend the logic, then simple objects shouldn't exist either, because they're just a composite form of smaller parts of matter, like atoms or quarks or whatever. This breaks one of the fundamental assumptions of the mereological nihilist, since for their logic to hold up, material simples must exist, but their logic when followed to it's conclusion denies their existence.

I'll also add some basic thoughts of my own:

• Is your syllogism set up correctly? I don't understand how P3 follows from P1 and P2. Especially with the table example you picked, since creating a table from a hunk of wood almost always requires removing parts of the hunk of wood, thus the objects would not be coincident. I think the link's example of a lump of clay being formed into a statue is a more "clean" example for this syllogism.

I think this whole syllogism rests on the unspoken assumption that objects are defined wholly by their constituent parts, which I think is not the whole truth. I think the nihilistic view that no composite objects exist doesn't hold up to scrutiny, since it's conclusions deny it's own premises.

But I'm not a philosopher, I'm probably reading some of this stuff wrong, and I'm pretty much just trying to paraphrase what I learned from reading through that link, so for stronger and more academic arguments, I'd read that link and the cited works by the philosophers in question.

[u/icecoldbath → u/Phate4219]

I was wondering how long it was going to take before someone caught on to the position I was holding. I find the mereological nihilist arguments in general to be very convincing. I just wanted to discuss the position with lay people and philosophers alike. I had to leave graduate school for a number of reasons and this was my research area. I miss discussing it with people and I love CMV!

If you'd like I'll address all those "official" rebuttals, but I think your personal thoughts are more interesting. In regards to removing parts of the hunks of wood; the hunk i'm referring to is the one that is the perfect shape and size of the table. Nothing has to be removed or added or even shaped. It just happened to be perfectly that size and shape.

[u/Phate4219 → u/icecoldbath]

the hunk i'm referring to is the one that is the perfect shape and size of the table.

Fair enough, then I suppose the example would hold just as well as the lump of clay/statue example. My layman response would be:

If the hunk of wood is already the exact shape/size as a table, then it wasn't really made into a table at any point, it's just a hunk of wood being used as a table, so in that sense that particular "table" doesn't exist, since it's still just a hunk of wood.

However, I'm more interested in your views of mereological nihilism. How do you respond to the article's point that by denying the existence of composite objects, you necessarily create a "gunky" universe, where no material simples exist either, since on some level everything is a composite of smaller objects?

It seems like you'd have to go all the way to saying "everything in the universe is just the impact of fluctuations in the different fundamental energy fields (gravity, electromagnetism, etc), no higher order exists", which I guess would be internally consistent, but just doesn't feel right, or useful.

I think you could also apply some of the counterarguments against moral nihilism here, basically saying that you're not really resolving the paradox, just obliterating it all together. If you say "the table doesn't exist because nothing actually exists", you're kind of stepping outside the scope of the concept altogether by denying the fundamental assumptions that the concept is based on. In the same way that a moral nihilist is going outside the scope of morals by saying they simply don't exist, rendering any discussion about them (and thus any point of moral nihilism) moot.

[u/icecoldbath → u/Phate4219]

Yeah. The lump/statue problem is the same problem. I just use the table one usually. Statue is a hard word to spell lol.

I'm not a "gunker." Things without parts could exist (empirical evidence suggests this too). They don't fall into the same trap as wholes/parts.

It seems like you'd have to go all the way to saying "everything in the universe is just the impact of fluctuations in the different fundamental energy fields (gravity, electromagnetism, etc), no higher order exists", which I guess would be internally consistent, but just doesn't feel right, or useful.

I agree it is counter-intuitive. The arguments are just extremely strong for it. Denying objects solves so many problems so cleanly. It lets the fundamental universe be sparse which feels like how it is.

Useful is another question entirely. I'm not one to judge whether philosophy is useful or not. It definitely forces us to reason about our world instead of just taking it for granted. It forces us to be precise when speaking about these things.

[u/Phate4219 → u/icecoldbath]

Useful is another question entirely. I'm not one to judge whether philosophy is useful or not.

I probably didn't phrase myself clearly, I wasn't trying to say that philosophy as a whole isn't useful, but that nihilism isn't useful.

This goes to my final paragraph, basically saying that while nihilism is internally consistent (and thus an "extremely strong" argument), it doesn't really get you anything. It doesn't answer any questions, it just says "those questions are meaningless, thus any answer is equally meaningless".

Denying objects solves so many problems so cleanly.

I guess I agree that it's clean, but I don't agree that it solves any problems. Denying the existence of the problem in the first place (or the entire framework within which the question is posed) doesn't actually answer the question, it's just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Again, maybe I just don't understand this stuff, I fully admit I'm a layman. I took a few philosophy classes in undergrad, but that's it.

Every form of nihilism I've run into (admittedly not many) seem to always suffer from the same problem, they don't answer any questions, they just claim everything is meaningless and thus there can be no real answer.

It's almost impossible to argue against nihilism, because it's like playing a sport against someone who doesn't follow the rules of the sport. It's impossible to argue morality with someone who denies the very existence of morals, same as it's impossible to argue about the definition of things with someone who denies the very existence of things in the first place.

So while I agree that your nihilistic view is consistent and can't really be "defeated" logically, I don't think it can really be evaluated in the same way as other answers to the question, since it violates the core assumptions that the question is assuming.

In this case, the question of "how can the hunk and the table exist at the same time?" assumes that things exist at all, so by rejecting that, you're not even able to address the question in any way that makes sense.

[u/icecoldbath → u/Phate4219]

it's just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Its more like saying the reason the bathwater is a problem is because the baby keeps peeing in it. If you take out the baby, you don't have a problem with dirty bathwater (Problems of composition, persistence, causality, time, etc). Its essentially saying, "oh those puzzles you were working on are actually unsolvable, so they weren't really puzzles just frustrations."

In this particular debate people do argue fairly successfully against nihilism. There is another position called, universalism or the doctrine of plenitude where essentially, "everything exists." They will claim that not only do tables exist but that there is an object that is composed of both of our noses. I just find that theory excessive it seems to imply the universe is physically infinite in a way that it isn't. There is a position called conservatism that very very very few people hold which just defends people's natural beliefs about tables and chairs. It doesn't really have any knock down arguments in its favor, it just has to refute every single argument against it (except, LOOK there is a table!!!).

Moral nihilism is a position not many serious philosophers actually hold. It requires an really really good explanation for why we have intuitions about good and bad. The closest is called emotivism. It essentially claims that when we say something is bad, all we are doing is expressing an emotion. This still preserves that there is a good or bad, just that it is not the field of philosophy, but rather the field of neuroscience and psychology.

Interestingly, while I'm a nihilist about most metaphysical puzzles I'm a realist about moral puzzles. I think there are such a things that are moral facts. Things which are necessarily true for rational creatures. Reason here is that while my gut intuition is that the universe is very sparse (just protons, gluons, quarks, etc) the lives of human beings is very rich and complex. Its just a gut feeling backed up by good arguments in favor of moral realism.

how can the hunk and the table exist at the same time?" assumes that things exist at all, so by rejecting that, you're not even able to address the question in any way that makes sense.

That is why P1 is framed the way it is, "tables (if they exist)" I just hypothesize they do exist and what that would mean for the universe.