At what point do you have a table?

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

You have a table. You cut it in half. You do not now have two parts of a table. You have two halves of a table. Agreed?

If you remove a leg then you have a part of a table. If you remove the nut and bolt that held that leg against the rest of the table you have three parts of a table and an incomplete table. Agreed?

If you take the table apart completely and grind it all into sawdust and metal shavings you still have a table. You have several millionths of a table, or something like that. Agreed?

If you take it apart completely and start getting rid of parts you still have parts of a table until you no longer have any of the parts. Agreed?

But all of that is when you start with a table. What about the other way? You know, you start with nothing, you make a part of a table, do you now have a table? If after you started with nothing you have made all of the parts but have not yet assembled anything, do you then have parts of a table? How can they be parts of a table when there has not been a table yet? Or do you, as I am inclined to say, have a table the moment somebody conceives of a table in his/her mind?

 

[TillICollapse]

You have a table when something functions as a table.

When it no longer functions as a table, you have something else.

Conceiving of the table in your mind is near practically meaningless unless it gets produced.

By the way, are you familiar with Zeno ? If not, you may find some of his paradoxes interesting. Your line of questioning reminded me of the Arrow Paradox and the Grain of Millet Paradox for some reason:

Zeno's paradoxes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Chesterton]

You have a table. You cut it in half. You do not now have two parts of a table. You have two halves of a table. Agreed?

If you remove a leg then you have a part of a table. If you remove the nut and bolt that held that leg against the rest of the table you have three parts of a table and an incomplete table. Agreed?

If you take the table apart completely and grind it all into sawdust and metal shavings you still have a table. You have several millionths of a table, or something like that. Agreed?

If you take it apart completely and start getting rid of parts you still have parts of a table until you no longer have any of the parts. Agreed?

Agreed on all of the above.

But all of that is when you start with a table. What about the other way? You know, you start with nothing, you make a part of a table, do you now have a table?

No, you have part of a table.

If after you started with nothing you have made all of the parts but have not yet assembled anything, do you then have parts of a table?

Yes.

How can they be parts of a table when there has not been a table yet?

Because the creator of the table parts (in his mind) is intending to make them into a table. If he was intending them to be parts of a boat, they would be parts of a boat.

Or do you, as I am inclined to say, have a table the moment somebody conceives of a table in his/her mind?

You don't have a table by conceiving of it. You have a conception of a table.

You know, I think the ancient Greek Empire was ruined because they spent too much time thinking about stuff like this.

 

[TillICollapse]

One more thing:

Replace "parts" with "LEGOS" and "table" with "LEGO table", and see if you still think a pile of LEGOS that haven't been assembled into anything are still "parts of a LEGO table".

 

[quatona]

Y Or do you, as I am inclined to say, have a table the moment somebody conceives of a table in his/her mind?

I´d say someone has a table at the moment he wants something to be a table.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

I´d say someone has a table at the moment he wants something to be a table.

So if you go to a furniture store and want a bed to be a table, it's a table?

 

[quatona]

So if you go to a furniture store and want a bed to be a table, it's a table?

Well, the way you worded this shows me that you haven´t understood.
Allow me to reword that for you so that I can answer "yes":
So if you go to a furniture store and want something that´s offered as a bed to be a table, it's a table?

 

[Paradoxum]

As soon as you cut the table in half, so it can't work as a table, it is no longer a table. We just say it is half a table because we can understand what it was before.

 

[Received]

I´d say someone has a table at the moment he wants something to be a table.

Yeah, but you're not really good at holding my beer, quatona.

 

[durangodawood]

You can have a "table"
or "parts of a table"
but a fleck of sawdust is not even a "part" by any reasonable definition.

 

[Chesterton]

You can have a "table"
or "parts of a table"
but a fleck of sawdust is not even a "part" by any reasonable definition.

I'm reminded of Monty Python's "dead parrot" skit. "This table is no more. This is an ex-table!"

 

[KnowtheSilence]

We label things "table" when we recognize it as having a particular function. This is just a matter of us applying a term to an object; there is no "table-ness" possessed by the object or its parts outside of us seeing it as such. This really becomes an "eye of the beholder" thing; it becomes a table when we say it's a table.

When you cut a table in half, most of us can recognize that the two halves were once together and that it was a table. We'd probably still call it a table since we can recognize it, even though it no longer serves its function. At some point (definitely by the time we get to the sawdust and metal shavings level) an random observer would not recognize the pieces as being part of a table. A random observer would not recognize it and would not label it "table." The person actively mulching his dining room set knows that it was at one point a table; whether or not he still refers to it as such is up to him.

It's similar going the other way. A carpenter could look at a tree and think "I could make a good table out of that." At this point, I think the carpenter could start calling the raw materials a "table" since he knows that's what it's going to be. A random observer wouldn't think of it as a table until it is fashioned enough that they can recognize how the various parts will function.

 

[Gottservant]

When man breaks a table in parts, man has parts of a table.

When man makes a table from parts, man does not have a table, his God does.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

but a fleck of sawdust is not even a "part" by any reasonable definition.

It is a millionth of a table. Or some number like that.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

We label things "table" when we recognize it as having a particular function. This is just a matter of us applying a term to an object; there is no "table-ness" possessed by the object or its parts outside of us seeing it as such. This really becomes an "eye of the beholder" thing; it becomes a table when we say it's a table...

It sounds like that means that a table is a perception.

If a table is a perception then we do not need to compare that perception to any reality--there are no tables outside of that perception.

At some point (definitely by the time we get to the sawdust and metal shavings level) an random observer would not recognize the pieces as being part of a table...

Of course they are not part of a table. Parts of a table would be legs, bolts, nuts, etc. Sawdust and metal shavings would be millionths of a table--or some other number.

It's similar going the other way. A carpenter could look at a tree and think "I could make a good table out of that." At this point, I think the carpenter could start calling the raw materials a "table" since he knows that's what it's going to be...

Then if we grind that tree into sawdust we have millionths of a table?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

If you take the table apart completely and grind it all into sawdust and metal shavings you still have a table. You have several millionths of a table, or something like that. Agreed?

If you showed me a pile of sawdust and said it was a table, I would think you're insane or you don't have a sufficient grasp of the English language. Or you're a philosopher playing definitional word games.

But all of that is when you start with a table. What about the other way? You know, you start with nothing, you make a part of a table, do you now have a table?

No, you obviously have part of a table.

If after you started with nothing you have made all of the parts but have not yet assembled anything, do you then have parts of a table?

Yes, you obviously have parts of a table which are not yet assembled.

How can they be parts of a table when there has not been a table yet?

Because they are parts of a table. A "table leg" is a separate thing as well. So is a "table top" and a "nut" and a "bolt". Certain combinations of parts make a table. These parts of tables can exist separately and thus have words to describe them.

A tree is not a table nor is it part of a table. It is a tree. Once part of the tree has been fashioned into a recognizable part of a table then that piece of wood can be called part of a table. Once those various parts are assembled into a recognizable table, then that object can be called a table.

This feels like just definitional word games.

Or do you, as I am inclined to say, have a table the moment somebody conceives of a table in his/her mind?

No you don't have a table when someone thinks of it.


That would be a pretty cool superpower though. Just think of lots of money and you'd have it!

 

[variant]

At what point do you have a table?

When it meeds all the necessary criterion you have put forward defining what a table is.

"Table" is an idea, a description of a set generalizations of things which are meant to preform a fairly specific if not exhaustive set of tasks.

When you destroy the function you have "half of what used to be a table" instead of "half a table" <- which is just sloppy language. You could "repair" Re- meaning again and "pair" from pare meaning "make ready" it back to a functional table yet again.

Disassembling a table gives you a disassembled table, inferring it can be reassembled, or is currently unassembled as in not completely put together yet. You buy all the necessary parts for a table from IKEA (given that they give you all the screws) instead of a "Table" proper.

 

[Cearbhall]

I've studied the Buddhist chariot analogy before. I'm usually very intrigued by philosophy, but frankly, my conclusion was "Who cares?" It's more revealing of the limitations of language than anything else.

 

[TillICollapse]

I've studied the Buddhist chariot analogy before. I'm usually very intrigued by philosophy, but frankly, my conclusion was "Who cares?" It's more revealing of the limitations of language than anything else.

Reminds me of the Private Language Argument (Wittgenstein):

Private language argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

When you destroy the function you have "half of what used to be a table" instead of "half a table" <- which is just sloppy language...

If I was to ask somebody for half of what used to be a table and they cut a table in half and brought me one of the halves I would say that I asked for half of what used to be a table, not half of a table.

To get half of what used to be a table you would have to start with what used to be a table.


x = a table

y = what used to be a table

Cut x in half and you don't get two halves of y--you get two halves of x.


Now we are back to square one: at what point does it become a table or is no longer a table (is what used to be a table)?