[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

>> No.5064553 [View]
File: 44 KB, 712x357, 1375705203319.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5064553

>>5064533
You have missed the point entirely. It doesn't matter if you attempt to separate Pizza into two groups. With one being a linguistic construct that refers to a 'food group' and one being an (objectively verifiable?) empirical object existing as CSS code in a laptop CPU that refers to a 'word in English'. We are talking about both your 'word in English' and your 'food group' as failing to be the pizza, and failing to capture it properly. I'll show you:

'Pizza' is a "semantic construct". We take this construct and tag the abstraction of the physical object with it. We have this circular shaped dough thing with cheese, tomatoes and other toppings, and call it a pizza.

Now, suppose I put a biscuit on it. Is it still a pizza? You might argue that it is a pizza WITH a biscuit on top, you might say that it is a biscuit pizza, or you may say something else.

The pizza is made up of many sub-constructs. We have the construct 'cheese', we have 'dough', etc.. But because it is still a semantic construct, it is only a DESCRIPTION of a set of abstractions. it is not, and can never be, THE abstraction.

So now what happens when I add salt into the dough mixture? You might say it's not a pizza, you might still think it is. I could put one molecule of salt into the pizza and you would never know it is there, or I could add a metric ton of salt so I have a mound of salt with mozzarella on top.

We have one continuous spectrum from an object that is not-pizza, right through to an object that is pizza, and back out the other side again with not-pizza (It may help you to mentally visualise this as a disk, with 'pizza' in the middle, and 'not-pizza' at the edges of the disc), but the outskirts of the construct obviously progress to absurdity.

Because semantic concepts are Descriptions, the verges of the concept will always break down when tested. There will always be a form, acquired through a linear series of sequential changes, that hovers at the outskirts of the definition; a point where you will say "I'm not sure if this is still a pizza."

The is no one true form for pizza: two pizzas with varying ratios of tomatoes to cheese will both be valid pizzas.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]