Re: Identity/function

[mech <mech@m3ch.net>]

At 2:05 PM -0700 7/20/06, samba - wrote:
>    I think this whole argument stumbles on the conflation of 
>Identity with function. If I use a mule to pull a plow I may be 
>likely to identify the mule by it's function,as a draft animal ie. a 
>tool.I suspect the mule would be somewhat more inclined to identify 
>itself as the victim of my urge to dominate.  I prefer to define 
>Identity as  self definition ,whereas labelling something by it's 
>function has nothing to do with identity ,it has to do with the 
>desire of some human for utility in manipulating the world. Of 
>course modern humans tend to distinguish between beings and 
>things,as such tools would be considered to have no sense of 
>self,hence no identity. Ths is part of why boot camp strips budding 
>soldiers of their sense of identity,so it will be easier to utilise 
>them as tools.

Excellent points, but how does an inanimate object "self-identify". 
When is a screwdriver an icepick, or even more confusingly, when is 
an icepick an awl?

Not arguing here, because I actually agree for the most part. 
However, Aristotle postulated (at least according to the URL we were 
discussing) that Identity was immutable and without change.  However, 
we can see from what's been presented here that if you change the 
ground rules of your definition, you can change the Identity of the 
object and thus "break" Aristotle's postulate.

        --m.
-- 
_______
"I'm wasting time worrying about wasting time."