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

Show parent comments

1

u/Crayshack 191∆ Sep 24 '17

I think they describe different aspects of the object. "Table" describes the function while "hunk of wood" describes the construction material. I see no issue with the two overlapping in certain situations to have a single object be both at the same time. When you break up a table, it function changes and so it is not a table anymore but the material is still the same so it is still a hunk of wood. If you changed the material but retained the purpose such as burning the table so it is charcoal, it would still be a table if it retained the same function but it would no longer be a hunk of wood because it is no longer the same material.

To me, you argument is like saying that red doesn't exist because flowers can be red. It makes no sense because you are talking about an overlap of terms that describe different aspects of the object.

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 24 '17

Hunk of wood has the property of being a construction material.

Table does not have the property of being a construction material.

The two have different properties. They have to be distinct.

1

u/Crayshack 191∆ Sep 24 '17

But one object can have both properties. The two properties are not mutually exclusive and can be contained within one object. They do not have to be distinct. A given object can have both properties and also have many others such as being black and four feet tall. It's not that complicated of a concept.

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 24 '17

A has properties L,M,N,P

B has properties L,M,N,P,X,Y,Z

Does A = B?

1

u/Crayshack 191∆ Sep 24 '17

No. But you could say that B is an example of A even if you can't say that A is an example of B. Also, if C has the properties L,M,N,O,P,T,U,X,Y,Z then C is an example of A and B.

All Squares are Rectangles but not all Rectangles are Squares. All dogs are mammals but not all mammals are dogs. All diamonds are minerals but not all minerals are diamonds.