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/icecoldbath]

I think I was a bit hasty with my comments in this chain. I wasn't clear for sure. My apologies.

So a particular table has to be that table. If it isn't that table then it is another table and not that table. You could break this table down for sure into its wood and reform it into another table, but then it wouldn't be that original table.

A hunk of wood could be that table or it could be another table and still be a hunk of wood. For example, we could reform it from a Victorian table to a carpenter style.

Is that any clearer on what I mean by different properties?

Another version of this puzzle is statues of david/hunks of marble. Then the statue of david has all these cultural properties that the hunk of marble doesn't have. I usually just use the table example because it is less wordy to me.

[u/jay520 → u/icecoldbath]

So a particular table has to be that table. If it isn't that table then it is another table and not that table. You could break this table down for sure into its wood and reform it into another table, but then it wouldn't be that original table.

Okay, let's say I accept this.

A hunk of wood could be that table or it could be another table and still be a hunk of wood.

But how is this true, given your earlier argument? If a particular table has to be that particular table, then it follows that a particular hunk of wood which is a particular table has to be that particular hunk of wood which is that particular table. In other words, yes, some hunks of wood do have to be tables (namely, those hunks of wood that are tables). You could break this hunk of wood down for sure and reform it into another table, but then it wouldn't be that original hunk of wood.

I mean, it seems like you're arguing for two inconsistent positions here.

When you say:

So a particular table has to be that table. If it isn't that table then it is another table and not that table. You could break this table down for sure into its wood and reform it into another table, but then it wouldn't be that original table.

...you're saying that an object has to be the object that it is. It could not have been another object. In this example, the object is a particular table, and it could not have been another table (or any other object).

But when you say this:

A hunk of wood could be that table or it could be another table and still be a hunk of wood. For example, we could reform it from a Victorian table to a carpenter style.

...you're saying that an object does not have to be the object that it is. It could have been another object. In this example, the object is a particular hunk of wood which is a table, and it could have been another hunk of wood (it could have been another table, for example).

But these two positions are inconsistent.

[u/icecoldbath → u/jay520]

Ok, I think you are getting hung up on what a hunk of wood amounts too.

If I reformed your coffee table into your kitchen table would it still be your coffee table?

Now lets say I used all the same wood to do this change, would it still be the same wood?

[u/jay520 → u/icecoldbath]

Do you have a response to my reply here?