Monday, May 01, 2006

I would argue that the trashcan is more than just the plastic that makes it up because the trashcan must meet the definition criteria for trashcan. For example, it must be a container, it must hold refuse, it is inanimate, it does not move unless something puts it somewhere else, it may have a discoloration or oder...

If we took the same plastic and ground it up, it would contain the same molecules but it would certainly not be a trash can anymore - we'd be unable to put trash in it.

Granted, if you watched me grind it up, you would know it WAS a trashcan, but if you were presented with this pile of plastic and had never seen it before, you'd never know it was a trashcan.


Blogger Undercover Sheep said...

I guess this logic works when considering an object that is named for its function, but what if the the trashcan was named "blah". "blah" is not defined as anything, so it doesn't need to perform a certain function in order to be called "blah". if you ground up "blah", would the ground up pieces still be "blah"? What if "blah" is just defined as its matter, not its form?

9:59 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home