I have heard this idea mentioned before: In order to find a difference between two things, there must be some area of similarity (i.e. some common substrate, although abstract concepts would require a figurative substrate). To be more specific, this similarity is derived from the difference.
Anyone have an opinion on this assertion? (or good counterexamples?)
Example: a newspaper and a magazine are different because magazines are generally glossy while newspapers are matte. Similarity = both are made of paper.
First you have to name the particular difference you want to point out.
For your example you could say: A brick is made of clay and a marshmallow is made of sugar, ergo both are solid objects composed of a uniform substrate.
I think it has more to do with frame of reference(although that may not be the best term). If two things share no frame of reference, then why are you comparing them in the first place? What is the point? In your example (newspapers v. magazines), there are a number of significant differences, but they only matter in how you are examining them. As media for storing information (glossy lasts longer and has less residue)? As fuel (glossy has more toxic chemicals released)? Without the frame of reference, what does the difference matter?
In other words, you have to ask “why should I care?” This will lead you to the frame of reference. Newspapers are matte and magazines are glossy: Why should I care? Because one leaves ink on your fingers when you read it, but is cheaper to produce. We now know the frame of reference is things you can read.
Compare that to the statement: Slate roofing tiles are matte and magazines are glossy. Why should I care? I can’t think of a single reason why that difference would matter to me. There for the comparison is meaningless because the two objects share no meaningful frame of reference.
This is where the argument falls down, I think - they’re certainly different, because one is a concept or state of mind and the other is a physical object made of plastic.
Their similarity? - they’re both ‘things’ that can be described in words.
This is a silly and artificial imposition on the process of comparison. How can we even tell that magazines and roofing tiles have (supposedly) no common frame of reference without first comparing them?
A specific difference must be stated. The more difficult it is to state a difference, the more distant the two concepts are.
That’s a more general difference, because you are allowing the glossy/matte dichotomy to exist for any two different mediums. Therefore the similarity will be very general as well: both are flat surfaces.
This seems completely back-to-front to me. A sense of duty is different from a lego brick because the latter is a material object and the former is a state of mind. Now, what is the similarity between those two things that permitted me to discern the difference?
I think the problem is one of us does not understand what the OP’s point is (and I fully acknowledge it could be me). I think he is referring to the fact that if someone states Item A is different (or better/worse) than Item B in manner X, someone else will come in and say that it is not a valid comparison because A and B are totally different and not meant to be compared.
My point is about how to tell if a comparison is valid. I think we all agree that finding differences in crispiness between Lays potato chips and the store brand are completely valid. But if I say that Lays potato chips are less crispy than wine glasses, I have left the frame of reference and my statement is essentially meaningless. In a less far fetched example comparing Lays potato chips to broccoli, it helps to determine what the frame of reference is. If it is food in general the comparison is valid. If it is food available in the vending machine downstairs from me, it is not.
That’s about as general a difference as you can get. The similarity must be even more general than the stated difference, and I believe it would require deep knowledge of cognitive science.
My best current attempt would be: A ‘lego brick’ is a material object while a ‘sense of duty’ is state of mind, ergo they both share a certain concept level in your mind (a common substrate of conception).
Except that this isn’t what we do when we decide that Lego is different from duty. We don’t derive the difference from some general similarity - the difference is evident in the form of absent similarity.
I don’t know. I can sum up the differences between Legos and a sense of duty with “they have nothing meaningful in common.” Describing the difference between Legos and Mega Bloks would likely take more than 6 words, but Mega Bloks have more in common with Legos than a sense of duty does.
