Shoes do not exist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linux
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Linux

Guest
When we speak of a shoe, we do not merely speak of an object that we arbitrarily decided to call a shoe for reason of distinction alone.

When we talk of shoes we are talking about what they are for.

However; the concept of a shoe as something you wear on your feet is a purely abstract idea, for we did not discover an object in nature that has the objective-nature of being worn on feet; for that would be a contradiction of the fact that there are empty shoes that might never be worn on a foot. The materials artificially formed as such that they conform to the nature of our feet has the potentiality of being worn on a foot. But it does not follow logically that such an object objectively exists beyond the conception of the person who invented shoes. This is to say that a shoe described as something that exists for the purpose of being worn on feet is not an essence that actually exists. Only the object we are “using” for the purpose of a shoe exists. It would not conflict with the objective purpose (if it has any purpose at all) of the object if I used it for gloves instead.

If I find a leaf and discover that it gets me high, it does not follow that the leaf exists for the purpose of getting you high.
 
I’m not entirely sure if I’ve followed correctly, but here is my response none-the-less.

A shoe is a type of tool, a tool is something that is a device meant to be used for a specific purpose. So putting a “shoe” on your hand does not make it a glove. What makes a shoe a shoe is the intended purpose not the actual purpose. This is the case with all tools. Just because you use a screwdriver to hammer in a nail does not make it a hammer. All it means is that you are not using a tool for its intended purpose.

The purpose of a shoe is to protect the feet of the person wearing them from the ground. I would refrain from saying that the purpose of a shoe is to cover the feet because there are a variety of shoes that do not really cover the foot, but all have the souls on the bottom of the shoe which protects the wearer’s feet from the harshness of the ground upon which they might walk.

I a shoe isn’t being worn, it still exists for its intended purpose, but as with any tool, it isn’t required to always be in use.
 
Linux said:
When we speak of a shoe, we do not merely speak of an object that we arbitrarily decided to call a shoe for reason of distinction alone.

When we talk of shoes we are talking about what they are for.

However; the concept of a shoe as something you wear on your feet is a purely abstract idea, for we did not discover an object in nature that has the objective-nature of being worn on feet; for that would be a contradiction of the fact that there are empty shoes that might never be worn on a foot. The materials artificially formed as such that they conform to the nature of our feet has the potentiality of being worn on a foot. But it does not follow logically that such an object objectively exists beyond the conception of the person who invented shoes. This is to say that a shoe described as something that exists for the purpose of being worn on feet is not an essence that actually exists. Only the object we are “using” for the purpose of a shoe exists. It would not conflict with the objective purpose (if it has any purpose at all) of the object if I used it for gloves instead.

If I find a leaf and discover that it gets me high, it does not follow that the leaf exists for the purpose of getting you high.
Click to expand...
God created the universe for the benefit of man and he is to use it to give praise and glory to God and to achieve his final end, union with God. To do this God gave man an intellect, a free will and a memory.

Men learned early that it was a good thing to protect their feet and other parts of their bodies from the hazzards of the environment and from each other. To this end men developed a means to protect their feet. To do this he used the products of nature, primarily animal skins to protect their feet.

Eventually someone applied the term " shoes " to this protective wear. You said they do not exist because they do not have a nature. That is wrong, They have a nature devised by the intellect of man. Admittedly it is an artificial nature, but it is a nature nevertheless.

Your argument makes no sense at all. It simply means, if you are serious, that you live in a make believe universe. Most of us prefer to live in a real universe.

Linus2nd
 
The sentence, “Shoes exist” just means “There are things which are called, by convention, shoes.” So shoes do exist. If this convention governing the use of the word “shoe” has vague boundaries, that does not mean that there is no such thing as shoes. The concept of “child” has vague boundaries, but children exist.

Are shoes part of the “furniture of the universe”? No. Shoes do not have an essence; they are purely conventional.
 
bzkoss236 said:
I’m not entirely sure if I’ve followed correctly, but here is my response none-the-less.

A shoe is a type of tool, a tool is something that is a device meant to be used for a specific purpose. So putting a “shoe” on your hand does not make it a glove.
Click to expand...
Objectively speaking it is neither a shoe or a glove, it is simply an object that can be used as a shoe. And guess what, I can put it on my hands two.
What makes a shoe a shoe is the intended purpose not the actual purpose. This is the case with all tools. Just because you use a screwdriver to hammer in a nail does not make it a hammer.
Click to expand...
Objectively speaking its not a hammer, but rather it is an object that we use for hammering.
All it means is that you are not using a tool for its intended purpose.
Click to expand...
The purpose you have given the object is subjective. It is not the things true objective “nature” to hammer nails. We simply found the object to be useful for hammering in nails. Hammering nails is not its natural teleological end, but rather it is a made-up end we imposed on the object. The object itself, objectively speaking is not a hammer, but rather we have found or manufactured an object that we prefer for the activity of hammering. The activity itself has no objective relevance to the objects intrinsic nature, and in fact the activity in and of itself has no nature at all.

Thus I am correct to say that the concept of a shoe, hammers, and whatever else we manufacture for are own convenience, cannot be found in an objective nature because the concept of a shoe designates only what we use it for and not the nature of some thing.

Its actually bizarre to me how you guys can’t seem to tell the difference between true teleology and the purposes we impose on objects.
The purpose of a shoe is to protect the feet of the person wearing them from the ground. I would refrain from saying that the purpose of a shoe is to cover the feet because there are a variety of shoes that do not really cover the foot, but all have the souls on the bottom of the shoe which protects the wearer’s feet from the harshness of the ground upon which they might walk.
Click to expand...
I agree that we use objects to protect the feet and we call that **concept **a shoe.
I a shoe isn’t being worn, it still exists for its intended purpose, but as with any tool, it isn’t required to always be in use.
Click to expand...
The object we call a shoe exists, but the objects we use for shoes has never objectively existed for that purpose, we impose that purpose on it subjectively…
 
Linusthe2nd said:
God created the universe for the benefit of man and he is to use it to give praise and glory to God and to achieve his final end, union with God. To do this God gave man an intellect, a free will and a memory.

Men learned early that it was a good thing to protect their feet and other parts of their bodies from the hazzards of the environment and from each other. To this end men developed a means to protect their feet. To do this he used the products of nature, primarily animal skins to protect their feet.

Eventually someone applied the term " shoes " to this protective wear. You said they do not exist because they do not have a nature. That is wrong, They have a nature devised by the intellect of man. Admittedly it is an artificial nature, but it is a nature nevertheless.

Your argument makes no sense at all. It simply means, if you are serious, that you live in a make believe universe. Most of us prefer to live in a real universe.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
See post 6.
 
This kind of looks like one is trying to reify the abstraction of a shoe.
 
I believe the Germans call gloves hand-shoes.
And I may be wrong but were the first clothes, and shoes presumably, made by the Lord in the Garden of Eden, or just outside it. Would this mean that shoes are not just an abstract invention but actually an integral part of Creation.
 
Paddy_Walker said:
I believe the Germans call gloves hand-shoes.
And I may be wrong but were the first clothes, and shoes presumably, made by the Lord in the Garden of Eden, or just outside it. Would this mean that shoes are not just an abstract invention but actually an integral part of Creation.
Click to expand...
First of all, It is not a dogma of the Catholic church that God made cloths for Adam and Eve or Steve for that matter.

Secondly, the idea that God used animal skin to cover any part of a persons body does not equate to the idea that God created animals for the teleology of clothing people.
 
Linux said:
First of all, It is not a dogma of the Catholic church that God made cloths for Adam and Eve or Steve for that matter.

Secondly, the idea that God used animal skin to cover any part of a persons body does not equate to the idea that God created animals for the teleology of clothing people.
Click to expand...
It means that shoes are not an invention of man, but of God. That is, the idea of a shoe existed in Gods mind before it existed. Surely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top