/lit/ - Literature

when its harder to refer to that other thing quick enough, so we decide that its a new thing and give it a name.

I'm listening to 'Hot Air Balloon' by the Disco Biscuits right now OP.

>>6527305
So when it is significantly altered ? Or is the name the defining factor ?

>>6527313
I love air balloons. I am very saddened by the idea that zeppelins will never come back. Aerial floating megastructures never

>>6527278
Every moment.

>>6527394
What about a priori objects such as triangles ?

>>6527358
>So when it is significantly altered ? Or is the name the defining factor ?

there's no measure for it, at least nothing that I know of. think of why we separate different things. essentially there are small incremental changes between similar things. at some points it adds up so that it's easier for us to refer to that "new" thing as separate thing. instead of trying to think of every single thing as an extension of one base thing, we separate things into many individual entities. makes life much easier.

>>6527427
So those changes add up, would you agree to say that when a certain amount of elements in a thing outweight the initial amount by wich we define it, the thing is altered enough that we think about it as a new object ?

>>6527446
precisely.

>>6527481
This is where I struggle. How to isolate these defining elements, how to extract them from complex elements that are made of simpler elements ? Abstraction ?

I have no idea what I should read on the topic, I'm thinking about asking a phil teacher

It doesn't. It was never a thing. Yet it always was.

autistic version: there are no "objects", there are only systems

There are no things, only things becoming things. This is the thing we talk about.

>>6527278
in every moment

>>6527510
What do you obtain when you subdivise a thing until it can no longer be split into subsystems, on a conceptual level ?

>>6527515
>>6527524
Your poetic jumbo wumbo ain't helping me

>>6527495

yea, it boils down to making abstractions. are you having trouble with anything in particular, or just generally?

>>6527543
>What do you obtain when you subdivise a thing until it can no longer be split into subsystems, on a conceptual level ?

you end up with a base unit, a building block, and by studying it you could infer about systems which build upon it.

>>6527278
>>6527543


I actually am glad that /lit/ has a thread on these, even though 10 seconds on google can give the solutions to these problems. It's a breath of fresh air

>>6527510
There are only objects, objects and actions.

>>6527668
>there are no "objects", there are only systems
>no no, there are only objects, objects and actions.
>there are only things and other things, not other other things

kek

at least define you terms. it's easy to shift your way of looking at things and think of objects as systems, and vice versa.

>>6527543
yet autism does

>>6527622
I am trying to understand the ontological transition from an essence to another in the particular case of art, in order to comprehend what is necessary to a medium and what is contingent to it.

I am "working" on creation in general and trying to figure out certain aspects of the concept of new.

Right now, and accepting this thread as truth, I am deducing a very modest scheme of composing elements, from wich a high percentage of necessary elements means an Archetypical item and a high percentage of necessary elements means a Specific item.

An item without contingency is an abstract conceptualisation, or a perfect platonic idea of said item.

When the contingency outweights the necessary (on what criteria ? quality, quantity ?) then we are in presence of a new essence. I call this the essence shift.

Pic very related.

Of course I am probably very wrong and only have a surface understanding of such complex problems, but I really enjoy studying this topic.

Thanks everyone for your help

>>6527711
>from wich a high percentage of necessary elements means an Archetypical item and a high percentage of necessary elements means a Specific item.

I meant "a high percentage of necessary elements means an Archetypical item and a high percentage of contingents elements means a specific item", of course, sorry.

>>6527711

in such case it is always best to approach your thoughts from new directions. for example, think of "things" or "objects" as processes, constantly changing. the rate of change and how we perceive the change has the most impact on when we consider a thing to become another thing.

>>6527711
Aristotle wrote some good shit on this stuff, also there's a bunch of philosophy of design/architecture dedicated to this stuff. Those guys love the chariot/argonaut, zeno's wall, and the pile of grain problems.

>>6527775
>>6527765
Thanks for the help guys, hopefully I'll get enough time to read this up

There are no things.

>>6527809
I use the term composed elements actually

>>6527642
There is no building block. There isn't even a Planck length. There is no discrete, smallest thing. It is all a single, indivisible thing. Everything is infinitely small, infinitely large and exists infinitely long.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY5r_zox-a8

>>6527836

I actually agree with you. however it is useful to think of certain things as building blocks, which just means "things out of which bigger things are made out of", something which is true. so in a sense yes there are building blocks to things, but it is just a name we give to a repetitive entity which exists in everything we know of.
And I actually think that the "all" that you speak of is divisible, which shows in that there are things that are different from other things. it can be divided infinitely to create the appearance of many different things, but remember that division does not mean separation, you still have one thing. a pie divided to three is still one pie, but with three distinct pieces.

>>6527871
Inseparable is the word I meant to use. I agree that it's infinitely divisible.

>>6527836
On a physical plane, yes, but not on a conceptual plane.

A prime element is a concept that cannot be subdivised.

Like primal colors or root mathematical concepts.

Quantitative change leads to qualitative change

A change in the temperature of a pot of water from 85 to 86 celsius won't do much. 99 to 100 changes everything

>>6527915
This is an interesting perspective.

>>6527313
>'Hot Air Balloon' by the Disco Biscuits
That was awful, Cats.

>>6527358
>Aerial floating megastructures never
Not on Earth anyway

>>6527918
It's dialectics

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis

Take universe or multiverse or whatever

The singularity at the moment of expansion. There is no space, no time. Which means there can't possibly be change, since change requires time. Yet there is the something and the nothing contained in the same singularity. It is nothing because a thing which has no space no time and never changes is nothing, and yet it is something. So the something and the nothingness BECOME. Becoming being the synthesis

>>6527918
It works with just about anything that changes, you just need to be aware of how the change takes place.

Muscle movements. Sports matches. An actual match being struck. Aging. A day leading to a year. A certain amount of carbon dioxide and methane released into the atmosphere to radically change the climate. Accumulating enough money through wages to invest and become upwardly mobile, ie stop working and start collecting profit/interest. Learning a few words as an infant and suddenly as a toddler or young child saying simple sentances. Quantity and quality

>>6527915
>>6527938
>>6527966

To try to make sense of your perspective I made a diagram.

Please tell me if I'm getting the gist of your theory.

>>6527278
All things is one thing unequally distributed by the varying and perpetual flows of asignifying particles operating from one object to another

In fact there isn't even one thing, all there is are lines of force.

>>6527358
>Aerial floating megastructures never
>>6527920
>Not on Earth anyway

Cloud city on Venus when?

>>6527920
jupiter and all the other gas planets are so fucking scary jesus christ

imagine falling down into that pit

>>6527711
Wittgenstein mate

>>6528000
I don't know if this is correct when it comes to dialectics, but I personally had never seen things with that angle

>>6527278
always