On the Problem of Splitting Hairs: A Sketch
How many hairs must you pull from a man's head before he becomes bald? An important question, as any pro-life supporter can tell you (just replace the hairs with embryo growth cycles).
Technically, 'bald' means hairless. But, of course, as a man begins losing hair, he one day becomes bald, even if he still has a few hairs on his head. So, which hair was the one that made him bald upon his leaving it? Peter Unger uses an argument like this to argue for scepticism: Take away an atom from an object and you still see it. Keep taking away atoms and you eventually have nothing. So, going in the other direction, when did you actually 'get a thing' from the atoms? (A simplification of his argument, to say the least)
My response is to picture a field. A person is at one end, and another standing next to a bail of hay at the other. The first person can't see the bail of hay, even though the second person knows it's there. Now start adding bails of hay, eventually making a pile. Eventually person 1 will see it and say, "There's hay." Now start taking them away. Eventually he will be unable to detect any sign of hay again and say, "There's no hay."
What's important here is to recognize the factors in play. Does the man know there is hay there in the first place, even when he can't see it? If he didn't initially, he won't know where to look. However, when the hay is being taken away, he will know where it is, and will likely be able to distinguish it longer. But at exactly which bail does the hay pile cease to exist? Well, that depends whether you're using the hay itself as the indicator or our perception of the hay. A question like the hair problem (or Unger's atom problem) depends on the observer, not the thing itself. Thus it's like using ourselves to make claims about things outside ourselves, as though "man is the measure of all things" once again.
Technically, 'bald' means hairless. But, of course, as a man begins losing hair, he one day becomes bald, even if he still has a few hairs on his head. So, which hair was the one that made him bald upon his leaving it? Peter Unger uses an argument like this to argue for scepticism: Take away an atom from an object and you still see it. Keep taking away atoms and you eventually have nothing. So, going in the other direction, when did you actually 'get a thing' from the atoms? (A simplification of his argument, to say the least)
My response is to picture a field. A person is at one end, and another standing next to a bail of hay at the other. The first person can't see the bail of hay, even though the second person knows it's there. Now start adding bails of hay, eventually making a pile. Eventually person 1 will see it and say, "There's hay." Now start taking them away. Eventually he will be unable to detect any sign of hay again and say, "There's no hay."
What's important here is to recognize the factors in play. Does the man know there is hay there in the first place, even when he can't see it? If he didn't initially, he won't know where to look. However, when the hay is being taken away, he will know where it is, and will likely be able to distinguish it longer. But at exactly which bail does the hay pile cease to exist? Well, that depends whether you're using the hay itself as the indicator or our perception of the hay. A question like the hair problem (or Unger's atom problem) depends on the observer, not the thing itself. Thus it's like using ourselves to make claims about things outside ourselves, as though "man is the measure of all things" once again.
posted by Derek at 4:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home