I was at a small cafe this weekend meeting with some friends. We usually get together on the weekends and discuss different philosophical questions. And the Question of Deacrtes and his Ball of Wax came up. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this idea, it basically goes like this: If you look at a ball of wax in your hand, your perception tells you it has a distinct ‘look’ shape, density, smell, taste, and if you knock it it makes a noise. HOWEVER, take that same ball of wax and put it next to the fire[or any heat source], and none of your previous perceptions remain the same. Suddenly its ‘look’ shape, density, smell, taste, all is different. Yet is it still the same ball of wax? Can one rely on empirical evidence/perceptions as to figure out the identity of anything? What does ths say about human cognitive processes?
I’d wager this is more of a Great Debate.
This is the sort of thing I really love talking about, but I’m afraid my fingers are just not up to the task of going into the finer points of cognitive relativity at this moment.
Maybe I’ll feel more up to summarizing after a few beers, I’ll be back.
— G. Raven
I am by no means a well-read philosopher. That said, the main thing I take away from this (or similar metaphysical discussions) is that everyday language is imprecise, and not suitable for talking about such grey areas.
Personally, I’d say it’s not the same ball of wax, as it’s not a ball anymore. But if you were to ask if it’s the same collection of wax molecules, then I’d say yes.
And of course, before you start talking about whether empirical evidence/human cognition is adequate to determine the identity of something, you have to say what you mean by “identity”.
I suppose the same idea can be placed to a person sitting down in a chair, if I get up and move across the room, my smell (being further away is diminished), I look different (as I am not sitting), I sound different (as I am further away). But I am still the same person (or am I?)
In general, metaphysics and philosophy go in Great Debates… You’ll probably like it over there, Phlosphr.
Well I would not think the same ideology can be used for a person because a person is easily recognizable(and never in a liquid state I might add) However, this question is more about perception and the efficacy of our empirical senses pertaining to what we beleive.
I believe a few of the victims of the Vesuvius eruption in Pompeii were in a liquid state for a short time. (Not that they wer alive at the time, of course.)
It was Heraclitus, I think, who said that one cannot step twice into the same river. All things are in flux at all times, and that has to include not only the river but the person stepping into it as well. The river’s different the second time, and I’m not the same person I was the first time I stepped into it anyway. I would say that the ball of wax isn’t the same from one moment to the next, even if we don’t subject it to heat, although the changes may be imperceptible.
And actually, the question you raised was not only about the ball of wax, but about human perceptions and empirical evidence, too. And so all our information is filtered through our perceptions; heck, for all we know, our perceptions may be all there is, representing nothing real at all. But ultimately, our perceptions are all we have to go on. Even if we think we get our information from some pure source–e.g., direct from some deity–it comes to us by way of our perception. Can it be trusted? Well, I would say that it shouldn’t be trusted too much, because we have all been in situations where our perceptions lied to us. But the alternative is to spend our lives in sensory deprivation tanks.
If nothing else, it helps keep us humble to remember that all we ever see is the surface of anything, and if we look beneath the surface, we just see another surface. Turtles all the way down. We have to trust our perception, to an extent, but it’s good to remember that our perception isn’t perfect. It’s fun to examine our perceptions to try to catch them deceiving us.
Then again, what do we have to examine our perceptions with? Our perceptions! Oh well. That’s why philosophy is so much fun.
No… you are an older version of the same person… I think
The action of smelling the ball of wax also changes it (assuming that the smell of it is composed of molecules which have evaporated from the surface, likewise handling it, although the changes made by these two actions are less perceptible, they are still changes.