No, I did not say that. Did you notice the part: “As soon as you can present a rational definition, and a rational argument for your assertions, you will be taken seriously.”? The trouble for you is that mythology is not rational.
Essential roughly means what is intrinsically natural for something to have. Dogs are naturally four legged, emotive and warm blooded, while humans are naturally rational, two legged, emotive and warm blooded, etc.
I am aware of this theoretical approach, but it is as you said just a “rough” definition. It does not solve the question of mutation, or malformation. If a dog would be born with 3 or 5 legs, would then it not be properly classified as a dog? Or the number f the legs is not “essential”, it is just an accident? I appreciate your first attempt, but you need to be much more precise.
A three-legged dog is a malformed or mutated dog, not what is natural for a dog to have.I am aware of this theoretical approach, but it is as you said just a “rough” definition. It does not solve the question of mutation, or malformation. If a dog would be born with 3 or 5 legs, would then it not be properly classified as a dog? Or the number f the legs is not “essential”, it is just an accident? I appreciate your first attempt, but you need to be much more precise.
“Why the intrinsic requirement?” Thought you wanted a definition of what is essence or essential for a being.
Does that mean you take this your statement back, or want to restate it:
You can’t truly consider the definition and refuse to truly consider it at the same time.
Why? You are arguing with specific people who have specific positions. That must be enough. We do not demand that you would agree with Marxists like Engels on the definition of life before arguing about it with us.
Still, I guess that a chair might supply a good analogy…
How do you define what is “natural” for a dog to have? If you say that a “mutated” dog is still a dog, then where do you draw the line? How many mutations will need to occur, before the dog becomes something else? These are not simple questions.
Designed by God - allegedly. So why is it that a God-designed object has essential and accidental properties, while human-designed object does not.
We have a misunderstanding here. I said that IF the argument BEGINS with an assumption of “immortal soul”, then it will be disregarded. However, if the argument starts with rational assumptions, and ends with a conclusion leading to the “immortal soul”, then it must be considered.
I wish we could agree on some points. But the truth is that the problems I bring up are highly controversial, so agreements are rare and hard to come by. But they happen once every blue moon.I would say that Hee_Zen is essentially a contrary person. He hardly ever agrees with anyone!
I would recommend to start with a chair and to move on to the dog when things will be clearer. It might not have a real essence, but the blueprint is “close enough” for now (and easier to understand).
Ah, I see. Yes, that is clearer. Still, that is not good enough, as you do not seem to accept such arguments when they are only meant to show that the position that includes belief in immortality of souls is not self-contradicting (in some specific way) and that it does not have a specific difficulty. And there is nothing wrong with them (as such). They mostly explain the position that one has. If that position includes something, there is nothing wrong with pointing it out (assuming that it is relevant).
So you don’t believe in the classification system? I think it is very specific about what constitutes the species (or essence) of a dog (or any other life form for that matter).
Many people are convinced that the moon is made of green cheese too and there is no way to argue them out of it. They just live on a different planet, as it were.Of course I do. The trouble is that there is no such thing as “THE classification system”, rather there are innumerable classification systemS. All these classification systems are based upon the individual value system of the person who wishes to apply them. And thus all of them are subjective and arbitrary. Some of them are useful for some specific purpose, the others may not be.
The biologists selected the ability to bring forth offsprings as the “essential” trait. But there is no reason to elevate this criterion to be THE essential one. For a fisherman the only classification that matters is: “is the fish edible or not”? For someone who is only interested in the sport aspect, the major trait is: “does the fish give a good fight”? He would throw the fish back after he caught it. For a doctor there are two kinds of beings: healthy or sick. If he can treat a sick animal, he would do it. For segregationist the “essential” trait is the ethnic heritage. For the bank: “is he able to repay the loan”?
I disagree. The fisherman or the everyman would say: this is a fish: It has gills, it swims, it has scales, it has fins, it lives in the water… etc. A fish is a fish is a fish. You are a human, I am a human. We write to each other on the this forum. We know that we have similar brains and can communicate. A fish could not do this.
That was not the point. You asked me about the “classification” system and I explained that there is no “unique classification system”.
(Emphasis mine) That is the question: what is it what makes a “dog” a “dog”? No matter how long you dance around the question: can you tell someone who has never seen a dog how to determine if a brand new “something” he encounters is a “dog” or not? Because it is not obvious. Pretend that I am a space alien, and try to tell me what a “dog” is.
I would still recommend to start from the chair instead of dog…