I was Wondering....

[Gardenia]

I know that apples make delicious deserts.. cakes.. pies.. pastries.. mmmm...

 

[StrugglingSceptic]

actually, :ae: has a point...

an apple is an idea...

Only to idealists. This is mostly a semantic nitpick.

when we say 'an apple' we are not talking about a specific apple, we are not holding an apple and talking about an actual piece of fruit.

True.

when we say an apple, we we are referring to the abstract idea of what an apple is...

No. For instance, I may say "an apple can be green." However, I would not say "an abstract idea of an apple can be green", because ideas themselves do not possess colour. So the referent of "an apple" is not an abstract idea.

A similar point is made about the distinction between use and mention. For instance, it is incorrect to say that Washington is the name of a city in America, because names are words, whilst Washington is a city. It is, however, correct to say that "Washington" is the name of a city in America.

 

[Osiris]

Only to idealists. This is mostly a semantic nitpick.

not necessarily.

No. For instance, I may say "an apple can be green." However, I would not say "an abstract idea of an apple can be green", because ideas themselves do not possess colour. So the referent of "an apple" is not an abstract idea.

you don't have to say, "an abstract idea of an apple can be green..." ... without you knowing it is being implied.

"an apple can be green"... it is not talking about an instance of an apple. it is talking about apples in general. when you talk about apples in general, you are talking about an abstract idea that describes instances of apples.

A similar point is made about the distinction between use and mention. For instance, it is incorrect to say that Washington is the name of a city in America, because names are words, whilst Washington is a city. It is, however, correct to say that "Washington" is the name of a city in America.

It was hard to understand what you meant to say here.

Here you said:

For instance, it is incorrect to say that Washington is the name of a city in America.

It is, however, correct to say that "Washington" is the name of a city in America.

Both instances you said Washington is the name of a city in America. But in one you said it was incorrect and in the other one you said it was correct...

"Names" are labels.
Words can be used as labels.
"Washington" is a word.

"Washington" is the "Name" of a city in America.

because names are words, whilst Washington is a city.

This was your excuse for saying it is incorrect to say Washington is the name of a city.

When one says Washington is a city... it implies "Washington is the name of a city."
------------------------------------------

Think of it this way... I have a machine that I designed. It makes Pauapo Cakes. Pauapo Cakes aren't made anywhere in the world, in the universe, etc... because I am the one that invented Pauapo Cakes.

There are currently no Pauapo Cakes in existance right now, because I made one and I ate it. The only way for another one to exist is if I pushed the button labeled, "Make Pauapo Cake" on the machine I created. But I will not do that yet...

So, you come in ...

S.Sceptic: Hi Osiris, what is that machine for?

Osiris: Oh, it's my lates invention, it makes Pauapo Cakes!

S.Sceptic: What are Pauapo Cakes?

Osiris: Well, Pauapo Cakes can be any color. They are delicious, the best cakes in the world!

S.Sceptic: Can I see one?

Osiris: No, I will have to make them first. My machine is running down on the ingredients and I don't want to waste them.

====================

StrugglingSceptic, here, I hope you can see that throughout this whole converstaion... the discussion wasn't about 'actual' Pauapo Cakes because there were none in existance. The conversation was about the idea that points to what a Pauapo Cake is supposed to be...

 

[StrugglingSceptic]

you don't have to say, "an abstract idea of an apple can be green..." ... without you knowing it is being implied.

It is not being implied though, because the abstract idea of an apple cannot be green. Abstract ideas are colourless.

"an apple can be green"... it is not talking about an instance of an apple. it is talking about apples in general.

Both are equivalent, so long as instances exist and the instance assumed is arbitrary.

when you talk about apples in general, you are talking about an abstract idea that describes instances of apples.

Maybe. But it is not the case, as you claimed earlier, that the referent of "an apple" is an abstract idea, because "an apple can be green" is true while "an abstract idea of an apple can be green" is false (again, abstract ideas are intangible and colourless). If the referent of "an apple" is an abstract idea, then "an abstract idea" should be substitutable for "an apple" in the original sentence without changing the truth value of that sentence. This is not the case.

It was hard to understand what you meant to say here.

Here you said:

Both instances you said Washington is the name of a city in America. But in one you said it was incorrect and in the other one you said it was correct...

"Names" are labels.

Nope. "Names" is a word, referring to the class of words which are names. The double quotes are not being used as scare-quotes here, but to indicate that it is the word contained in the quotes that is being referred to. Other stylistic conventions may prefer to use italics instead.

Words can be used as labels.
"Washington" is a word.

"Washington" is the "Name" of a city in America.

No. Washington is the name of a city in America. "Washington" is the word we often use to refer to the city, Washington.

This was your excuse for saying it is incorrect to say Washington is the name of a city.

When one says Washington is a city... it implies "Washington is the name of a city."

Washington is not the name of a city. Washington is a city, and its name is "Washington" (note the double quotes).

It may seem like pedantry, but I was pointing out that the original error is comparable to saying

an apple is a word with five letters.

When what should really be said is

"apple" is a word with five letters.

Similarly, it is wrong to say

an apple is an idea I have in my mind.

What should really be said is

The idea of an apple is an idea I have in my mind

which is a much less profound claim than the first one. Strictly speaking, the first claim is a claim of idealism.

------------------------------------------

Think of it this way... I have a machine that I designed. It makes Pauapo Cakes. Pauapo Cakes aren't made anywhere in the world, in the universe, etc... because I am the one that invented Pauapo Cakes.

There are currently no Pauapo Cakes in existance right now, because I made one and I ate it. The only way for another one to exist is if I pushed the button labeled, "Make Pauapo Cake" on the machine I created. But I will not do that yet...

So, you come in ...

S.Sceptic: Hi Osiris, what is that machine for?

Osiris: Oh, it's my lates invention, it makes Pauapo Cakes!

S.Sceptic: What are Pauapo Cakes?

Osiris: Well, Pauapo Cakes can be any color. They are delicious, the best cakes in the world!

S.Sceptic: Can I see one?

Osiris: No, I will have to make them first. My machine is running down on the ingredients and I don't want to waste them.

====================

StrugglingSceptic, here, I hope you can see that throughout this whole converstaion... the discussion wasn't about 'actual' Pauapo Cakes because there were none in existance. The conversation was about the idea that points to what a Pauapo Cake is supposed to be...

The conversation is not about actual Pauapo Cakes, no, but neither is it about an idea. Instead, it is about hypothetical cakes. Again, it would be incorrect, strictly speaking, to say that Pauapo Cakes are ideas. Ideas are not edible. Hypothetical Pauapo Cakes are (at least I hope they are).

 

[Osiris]

It is not being implied though, because the abstract idea of an apple cannot be green. Abstract ideas are colourless.

no. a color can be an attribute within abstract ideas...

Both are equivalent, so long as instances exist and the instance assumed is arbitrary.

"an apple can be green..." does not assume an arbitrary instance of an apple.

"apples in the corner store could be green" assumes an arbitrary instance of an apple within the store.

Maybe. But it is not the case, as you claimed earlier, that the referent of "an apple" is an abstract idea, because "an apple can be green" is true while "an abstract idea of an apple can be green" is false (again, abstract ideas are intangible and colourless). If the referent of "an apple" is an abstract idea, then "an abstract idea" should be substitutable for "an apple" in the original sentence without changing the truth value of that sentence. This is not the case.

abstract ideas have attributes, color could be one of them.

if you are talking about an instance of an apple... you cant say, this apple can be green if the apple is red. that would be illogical.

if you are holding a red apple, it will never be green and it can't be green naturally... the only way you can change the color attribute is before it is an instance...

Nope. "Names" is a word, referring to the class of words which are names. The double quotes are not being used as scare-quotes here, but to indicate that it is the word contained in the quotes that is being referred to. Other stylistic conventions may prefer to use italics instead.

sorry, you didn't specify it in your post...

No. Washington is the name of a city in America. "Washington" is the word we often use to refer to the city, Washington.

Washington is not the name of a city. Washington is a city, and its name is "Washington" (note the double quotes).

Sorry I was not aware you were using such convention.

States can be divided into cities.

Cities, have attributes:
{name, area, population, etc...}

And yes, I would agree with you on this...

But, luckily, cities have unique names... and unfortunately apples do not.

So, when you say, Washington is in the northern hemisphire... this would be talking about an actual instance of a city (the abstract idea of city).

But when you say, "an apple can be green", let's assume all apples have unique names, and their names are numbers that range from 1 to infinity. So, when you say, "an apple can be green", which actual instance of an apple (abstract idea of an apple) are you talking about?

let's say apples 1 to 1,000 are all red... 1,000 to 2,000 are green...

if you mean to say, "an apple can be green" refers to apple 700... then no, a red apple can't be green, it is already instantiated, and it is red.

if you mean to say, "an apple can be green" refers to apple 2,700... then no, a green apple is green... it is not that a green apple can be green.

It may seem like pedantry, but I was pointing out that the original error is comparable to saying

it's okay, as long as you let us know what the rules you are following before hand...

an apple is a word with five letters.

When what should really be said is

"apple" is a word with five letters.

agree, but you are somewhat equivocating the subject by bringing words into the picture... abstract ideas are not words -- they are ideas.

Similarly, it is wrong to say

an apple is an idea I have in my mind.

What should really be said is

The idea of an apple is an idea I have in my mind

which is a much less profound claim than the first one. Strictly speaking, the first claim is a claim of idealism.

when speaking in general about something, they are speaking about the abstract idea that represents those things.

an apple i'm eating is actually referring to an instance of an apple, apple 477...

an apple can be green, is refering to the abstract idea that represents an apple...

let's say there are zero apples in existance, and the only way to make them is through an apple making machine. you say, i want an apple... i want a green apple... you are not talking about any actual instance of an apple because none exist. you change the color settings on the machine to green... press make... and bam! an instance of a green apple!

The conversation is not about actual Pauapo Cakes, no, but neither is it about an idea.

I don't know if you are confusing what the word idea is supposed to represent.

when i say idea... i mean a concept, an abstract structure which is used to describe generalizations.

Instead, it is about hypothetical cakes.

Osiris: Well, Pauapo Cakes can be any color. They are delicious, the best cakes in the world!

hmmm... hypotheical cakes...

before we go any further, could you give an example of what an abstract idea of a Pauapo Cake would be? It seems to me as though you might think that there is no such thing as an abstract idea.

Again, it would be incorrect, strictly speaking, to say that Pauapo Cakes are ideas. Ideas are not edible.

hmm... I never said Pauapo Cakes were ideas... seems you did not really understood what i wrote.

when speaking in general, you are speaking about the abstract idea of which you are trying to describe.

"an apple can be green" ... you are speaking in general about apples.

"Pauapo Cakes can be any color" ... i am speaking in general about Pauapo Cakes...

I am not saying an instance of an apple is an idea, nor an instance of a Pauapo Cake is an idea... i am saying the conceptualization of such is...

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

I have to wonder what "perfect" knowledge really means in this context, and if it can be meaningfully defined at all.

In this context, it can be defined as the utopian state of a subject knowing its object 100%.

Another example would be-->counting upto infinity. One will always be counting.


P.S. Its nice to be back churning out all my mumbo jumbo