c/o 2019 Applicant Compendium (2015 - 2016) Forum

The Abyss · Post by **The Abyss** » Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:08 pm

scone wrote:
jettison63 wrote: About to leave for Halloween in general. BUT, this has been on mind. And I think that the natural state of a doorway is closed, while its natural function is to be opened (and then to return to its natural closed state). Similarly, the natural state of my washing machine is is off, but its natural function is to wash clothes.

We are taking the walls as a given, I think. But if the doorway was supposed to be open, why have walls? We essentially have walls to close off and divide space. The doorway is to provide a temporary opening into a space that was designed to be closed......
This could just as easily be written to defend the opposite thesis: the natural state of a doorway is open, while its natural function is to be closed. Openings in walls are there to open up and join space. The doorway is to provide a temporary closing off of a space which was designed to be joined.

The Abyss wrote: If something is openable, doesn't it make much more sense for it's natural state to be closed?
If something is openable but not necessarily closable, then it would not make sense for its natural state to be something it only can be contingently, if at all, as opposed to something it can be necessarily, no?

Yeah, I'm not saying it has to be closable, but for something to be opened it has to first be closed. Therefore, for something to be openable, it must be closed. There's no in between. It's like none, some, most and all in logic. There's only one 0 value (closed), but many ways of stating 1-100 (different amounts of open). I don't know if I'm actually making any sense or being stupid at this point either, so there's that too. I got a pretty mean buzz going.

ffamran · Post by **ffamran** » Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:10 pm

Just because something is openable doesn't mean the natural state is open. You can open a can of soup, but I think we would all agree that the natural state of a can of soup is closed.

EDIT:

Well, a can of soup has to be openable, as otherwise it is a hunk of metal. A can of soup does not have to be closable - it is still a can of soup if the can has been opened and can't be resealed (whereas, conversely, if it will never open, it is not).

If the natural state of a can of soup were closed, it would derive a contradiction, as it is not essential to cans of soup that they even be closable.

So the natural state of a can of soup is open.

All the steps work the same, yet I feel so strongly that the natural state of a can of soup is that it is closed.

EDIT2: I guess you could consider that, in opening the can, we are returning it to the way it was meant to be. Hmm...

scone · Post by **scone** » Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:16 pm

barley wrote:Are you all high

You're about five pages too late

Depressingly, this is essentially my degree

@The Abyss, I don't think it's true that for something to be open it has to first be closed ('opened', possibly, but that wouldn't answer my point). Consider a new door, freshly set upon its hinges, open and never yet closed. I don't think that's contradictory.

Anyway folks, as delightful as I'm finding this, it's rather late in my timezone, so goodnight!

ffamran · Post by **ffamran** » Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:20 pm

scone wrote:
barley wrote:Are you all high

You're about five pages too late
Depressingly, this is essentially my degree

@The Abyss, I don't think it's true that for something to be open it has to first be closed ('opened', possibly, but that wouldn't answer my point). Consider a new door, freshly set upon its hinges, open and never yet closed. I don't think that's contradictory.

Anyway folks, as delightful as I'm finding this, it's rather late in my timezone, so goodnight!

noooooooo
goodnight

The Abyss · Post by **The Abyss** » Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:26 pm

scone wrote:
barley wrote:Are you all high

You're about five pages too late
Depressingly, this is essentially my degree

@The Abyss, I don't think it's true that for something to be open it has to first be closed ('opened', possibly, but that wouldn't answer my point). Consider a new door, freshly set upon its hinges, open and never yet closed. I don't think that's contradictory.

Anyway folks, as delightful as I'm finding this, it's rather late in my timezone, so goodnight!

I didn't say open, I said "opened" and "openable". I think you'd agree that there is a large difference in the meanings of each one. I will not argue that something that is open must first be closed, but for something to be opened must be closed, and for something openable must be closed at some point. Words and stuff and rumble rumble.

The Abyss · Post by **The Abyss** » Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:33 pm

See what you've done Ben.

scone · Post by **scone** » Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:36 pm

ffamran wrote:Just because something is openable doesn't mean the natural state is open. You can open a can of soup, but I think we would all agree that the natural state of a can of soup is closed.

EDIT:
Well, a can of soup has to be openable, as otherwise it is a hunk of metal. A can of soup does not have to be closable - it is still a can of soup if the can has been opened and can't be resealed (whereas, conversely, if it will never open, it is not).

If the natural state of a can of soup were closed, it would derive a contradiction, as it is not essential to cans of soup that they even be closable.

So the natural state of a can of soup is open.
All the steps work the same, yet I feel so strongly that the natural state of a can of soup is that it is closed.

Ok I said I was going to bed, but one last post haha! I agree with your intuition - it does seem that the natural state of a can of soup is closed. The steps of my quoted argument don't actually work the same; in fact, I think it leads to the opposite conclusion:

A can of soup doesn't have to be openable, as one can conceive of a can containing soup which was made so strongly that no one could open it. However, a can of soup does have to be closable: were it never in a closed state, it would simply be a bowl or a pot, not a can.

If the natural state of a can of soup were open, it would derive a contradiction, as it is not essential to cans of soup that they even be openable.

So the natural state of a can of soup is closed.

Goodnight for real!

mornincounselor · Post by **mornincounselor** » Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:37 pm

Post removed.

benwyatt · Post by **benwyatt** » Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:51 pm

Post removed.

ffamran · Post by **ffamran** » Fri Oct 30, 2015 11:01 pm

scone wrote: Ok I said I was going to bed, but one last post haha! I agree with your intuition - it does seem that the natural state of a can of soup is closed. The steps of my quoted argument don't actually work the same; in fact, I think it leads to the opposite conclusion:

A can of soup doesn't have to be openable, as one can conceive of a can containing soup which was made so strongly that no one could open it. However, a can of soup does have to be closable: were it never in a closed state, it would simply be a bowl or a pot, not a can.

If the natural state of a can of soup were open, it would derive a contradiction, as it is not essential to cans of soup that they even be openable.

So the natural state of a can of soup is closed.

Goodnight for real!

Umm I don't agree:
- A can of soup that no one can open is not a can because it does not fulfill its purpose anymore. Same with a can of soup that has never been closed. So it is the same as a door in this sense.
- A can of soup that is never in a closed state is distinct from a bowl or pot because it has a circular piece on top that will cut you if you're not careful

I thought about this in the shower and I actually changed my mind and I think the natural state of a can of soup is open. It starts its life open. It ends its life open. The closedness is just a temporary state for the can of soup.

ffamran · Post by **ffamran** » Fri Oct 30, 2015 11:40 pm

As I was contemplating the natural state of toilets, I came to the realization that the natural state of all of these things includes "able to be manipulated"

Guys this is seriously troubling me

barley · Post by **barley** » Sat Oct 31, 2015 12:03 am

benwyatt · Post by **benwyatt** » Sat Oct 31, 2015 12:25 am

Post removed.

barley · Post by **barley** » Sat Oct 31, 2015 12:32 am

benwyatt · Post by **benwyatt** » Sat Oct 31, 2015 12:43 am

Post removed.

justabitunusual · Post by **justabitunusual** » Sat Oct 31, 2015 12:50 am

benwyatt wrote:I'm so pleased with what I've done.

don't mind me...those stats tho... I feel like Ben Wyatt's stats would be comparable to these so it's cool.

benwyatt · Post by **benwyatt** » Sat Oct 31, 2015 1:01 am

Post removed.

The Abyss · Post by **The Abyss** » Sat Oct 31, 2015 1:03 am

barley wrote:
benwyatt wrote:
barley wrote:I Would Wish You All A Happy Halloween, But I Don't Want To Encourage Any Pagan Devil Worship.

In Jesus's Name,

Amen

[+] Spoiler
Do Y'all Like My TLS Halloween Costume?
Jfc, you actually got me.
You Should Not Take The Name Of The Lord Our God In Vain.

In Jesus's Name,

Amen

I feel really stupid that I didn't even look at the damn username here. I was thinking "what is the halloween costume?" and why is the FarMEr here in this thread? And then I finally looked up and saw Barley. Dammit.

Well done.

justabitunusual · Post by **justabitunusual** » Sat Oct 31, 2015 1:16 am

benwyatt wrote: I appreciate that you just cruised in from the c/o 2018 to mildly throw shade.

Whatever. No shame.

Ftfy...no, I was genuinely impressed...just try to lighten up ab it

benwyatt · Post by **benwyatt** » Sat Oct 31, 2015 1:49 am

Post removed.

Hildegard15 · Post by **Hildegard15** » Sat Oct 31, 2015 2:17 am

Post removed.

justabitunusual · Post by **justabitunusual** » Sat Oct 31, 2015 2:28 am

Hildegard15 wrote:
benwyatt wrote: A+ giffing
Using parks and rec gifs. You fit right in

What is life even w/o parks? You guys are cool...

Good Luck in your cycle!

mornincounselor · Post by **mornincounselor** » Sat Oct 31, 2015 2:37 am

Post removed.

Go Justice · Post by **Go Justice** » Sat Oct 31, 2015 8:45 am

Good article from the Times a week ago

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/opini ... EMARK&_r=0

James.K.Polk · Post by **James.K.Polk** » Sat Oct 31, 2015 9:13 am

Post removed.