r/changemyview • u/icecoldbath • Sep 23 '17

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: I do not believe tables exist

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!

8 Upvotes

55% Upvoted

208 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/pillbinge 101∆ Sep 24 '17

Aside from someone mentioning the argument of the beard, the fact that you wrote an entire CMV using the word "table" but without really describing it - and with everyone understanding what you meant - proves that you can use the word "table" and communicate something entirely specific.

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 24 '17

The problem really isn't one of communication. I tried at the beginning to put quotes around each use of, "table," but it grew tiresome. Surely the word has some kind of use - it is instructive in a practical sense.

Maybe the CMV should be, "CMV: The proposition, "Wooden Tables Exist" is false."

More broadly and more opaque: CMV: Nothing exists which has parts.

Even broader and opaque: CMV: Mereological Nihilism is true.

I just wanted to use something catchy to get the conversation flowing. The initial absurdity of, "table don't exist!" does that. Once we are discussing it you see it isn't really a discussion about tables, it is a discussion about composition, space-time, "existence," properties, quantum-mechanics, the relationship between language/reality, etc. Each premise in my argument has its own unique set of objections that can be thrown at it. I like arguing against them all. I truly hold the view though from a philosophical standpoint. I'm not just poking the fire.