...I am now atheist.

[destruct]

1. Morality is about being a good person.
2. We become a good person through doing good actions.
3. So our will must choose to do that good action.
4. We know what is good through our intellect.
5. When something is good it perfects the basics of what makes us human. (that's the philosophical definition).
6. Basically, then, because we want only what is good for us, and that is founded in what it means to be human, there has to be a set of morals.

7. If our human nature changes,  morality changes, because morality for anything is based on what it means to be that thing.

8. It can't all just depend on convention because just like physically, there are certain things outside of what we think about them, are good and bad for us to eat.  Eating a bowling ball is bad for me, no matter what I think about it.  Same thing with morality.

9. For the screwdriver example, if that isn't your definition of screwdriver, what makes a screwdriver a screwdriver?
10. And anyways, according to your argument, since the majority of society decides that murder is wrong, and they should be right, according to your argument shouldn't I be right in saying that the definition of a screwdriver is something that screws screws because the majority of society believes it therefore it should be true?

In order:

1. From Wikipedia: "Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong)."

2. Only because the majority of humans think so. Certain actions are seen as "good" by the majority. So if you do them, you will be seen as "good" by the majority.

3. What if I can afford to not care about what society thinks of me?

4. No, we do not. We are taught what the majority of humans believe to be "good" by our various seniors, e.g. parents and teachers. They, in turn, are taught by their parents and teachers. You can trace this all the way back to primitive times, and even to their evolutionary roots. Also, remember that morality used to be different in ancient times. Women used to have no rights whatsoever, and it used to be okay to have duels to the death for one's honor.

5. No, it doesn't. It makes those who believe your action to be "good" like you and treat you better. Doing what they think of as "bad" will make them dislike you and treat you worse.

6. I've rejected all of your premises so this conclusion does not hold.

7. Again, morals used to be quite different in ancient times. Yet they were still practiced by humans back then, as far as the human genome is concerned.

8. Not necessarily. Think of extreme cases. What if some sadistic omnipotent deity tells me that I have to eat a bowling ball? If I actually succeed in eating the bowling ball, the deity will restore me to full health and give me superpowers. But if I refuse to eat the bowling ball, the deity will condemn me to a state of eternal suffering. Then it'd be obviously good for me to at least try to eat the bowling ball. True, this scenario is contrived and specifically set up to undermine your argument. But it certainly is not the case that eating a bowling ball is bad, regardless of the context.

9. A screwdriver is whatever you think a screwdriver is. If it disagrees with what I think a screwdriver is, we can argue about it. If either of us succeeds in convincing the other, then the other now thinks differently about what a screwdriver is.

10. Consensus does not make a definition objective or absolute, because consensus is just as malleable as anything else. For example, the consensus used to be that "gay" meant "happy". Now the word instead means homosexual.

1. Sorry.  Here is what I am trying to say.  What is the thing(s) that you say makes humans humans?  If there is a defining characteristic that makes us human, everyone has to share that characteristic to be human.  Those parts the nature of a human being.
2. Again, I am defining good by the classical definition in philosophy:  the perfection of a thing's nature.  So therefore, acts are only good if they perfect our nature, and don't violate it.  I think you are using a different definition of good.
3. My definition of a human is a temporal being created in the image and likeness of God with an intellect and a will.  But you are probably going to debate this with me. This doesn't really matter here, but do you now agree that humans have a common nature?

In order:

1. I already said that this is a very complicated matter that is difficult to define clearly, hence why I don't believe in the existence of some "human nature". The closest answer would be the human genome, I think.

2. a) "Perfection" implies the existence of some "good". Again, I believe that all such "good" is subjective, decided by consensus at best.
b) If human nature is the human genome, how can it be "perfected"? By improving a human's natural abilities like strength and intelligence? That involves eugenics and biological enhancement, which is a whole other can of worms.

3. I vehemently disagree. I already said that my definition of a human is this pattern of elementary particles that most humans agree to be human. It's a very complicated matter, and we're going by intuition rather than any rigorous science or logic. And I do not trust intuitions.

1.Acting morally is about acting good.  Sorry I forgot the acting part in that statement.
2.  The whole problem here is that you disagree with me about human nature.  Are you saying that humans have a nature, but it is this arrangement of particles, or are you saying that they don't have a nature at all?  This whole argument hinges on the basis of human nature.  So before I can go to this, let's define nature.

The nature of a thing can't change.  Because if the nature changes, it is no longer that thing.  The things that can change without the nature changing are the accidents of a thing (philosophical definition of accident).  So because the human genome can mutate, it can't be the nature.

[Bloodshadow]

What are you calling it?  A screwdriver still?  Because that word is specifically linked to the concept of screwing screws.  A thing can't be called a screwdriver if it doesn't do what a screwdriver does, because all of our words come from concepts, or universals, we have about a certain thing.  That thing doesn't follow the concept of screwdriverness therefore it can't be called a screwdriver.

I'm allowed to call it whatever the hell I want. Now, if I were to try to shove my definition of a "screwdriver" down your throat, you will probably have a problem with it. But I am not trying to shove my definition down your throat.

Let me spell this out for you then. You think your definition is the absolute universal truth. You think your definition is right and everyone else's definition is wrong if they disagree with you. You are trying to force your definition down my throat. This makes you an arrogant and controlling person. Your opinion is not absolute truth, even if the majority of humans agree with you.

Lets step away from humans and take simpler things as examples.  How do you know when something is red?  Am I correct in saying that you have this concept of "redness" in your mind to determine whether something is red?  And this concept of redness comes from your experience of red.  So in your mind, you define something as red because of this conceptual understanding of it.  Do you agree with me on this?

Talking about qualia now, are we?

Okay, regarding your example of redness. I know that an object, i.e. a collection of elementary particles, is red if it reflects electromagnetic radiation of wavelength 620-740 nanometers into my eyes. I don't remember the exact mechanism I learned in chemistry class last year, but the electromagnetic radiation strikes certain cells in my eyeballs, which triggers the eyeballs to send electrical signals to my brain. Depending on where the signals came from (e.g. which photoreceptor cells), the brain then interprets the signals as "red". It's a biologically pre-programmed thing, having arisen from evolution.

True, here you may say that red is some kind of universal absolute. But as I've explained above, "red" actually means "electromagnetic radiation with wavelength of 620-740 nanometers". It is a physical part of the universe, not an abstract concept. Your "nature" does not apply here because as far as I can see, it's an abstract concept, arbitrarily defined by our conscious brains.

Before we go here, I would like to clear up the idea of nature, because I still think nature is universal, hence the name nature, not accidents (changes that can happen to a thing that do not change what it is; i.e. cutting off my finger does not change the fact that I am still human, and therefore it is an accidental change).

And I do not. You're not going to convince me by repeating your point over and over.

I didn't want to debate this here either, I agree that it doesn't matter right now.
I don't know how else to convince you if you don't want to believe evidence.

At least I'll accept evidence if it presents itself in sufficient quantity and quality (e.g. anecdotal "evidence" isn't enough). Doing so may make me uncomfortable, but pretending that the evidence isn't there doesn't make it go away.

2.  The whole problem here is that you disagree with me about human nature.  Are you saying that humans have a nature, but it is this arrangement of particles, or are you saying that they don't have a nature at all?  This whole argument hinges on the basis of human nature.  So before I can go to this, let's define nature.

The nature of a thing can't change.  Because if the nature changes, it is no longer that thing.  The things that can change without the nature changing are the accidents of a thing (philosophical definition of accident).  So because the human genome can mutate, it can't be the nature.

I am saying that the closest thing we have to a "human nature" is the human genome, and even then that's an arbitrary piece of information defined by consensus. I do not think that there is anything like the sort of "human nature" you speak of.

The problem with your definition, I think, is that you keep saying "nature" is universal and cannot change. Not even an infinitesimal change? Let's say that through some feat of science, magic, or will of God, my body is transformed from that of a human to that of a wolf. The process is smooth and gradual. At which point did I stop being human? What if my mind is transformed too, in an equally gradual manner? You can say that I am human because I have a human soul, but I do not believe in souls.

[OldTrees]

What I should say is that if you create the screwdriver to mess with people, it is no longer a screwdriver, because the definition of a screwdriver is something that screws screws.  So your creation has an entirely different nature, and no longer has the nature of a screwdriver.  Because of that different nature, it now has a different goal.

The screwdriver I created to mess with people was the exact shape/materials/etc as a normal screwdriver. So the nature of something is not observable by examining the thing? If we cannot identify the nature of something by examining that thing then none of the goals observers claim it has count as evidence.

What are you calling it?  A screwdriver still?  Because that word is specifically linked to the concept of screwing screws.  A thing can't be called a screwdriver if it doesn't do what a screwdriver does, because all of our words come from concepts, or universals, we have about a certain thing.  That thing doesn't follow the concept of screwdriverness therefore it can't be called a screwdriver.

The word screwdriver in english is defined to mean "A tool with a flattened or cross-shaped tip that fits into the head of a screw to turn it." not "An object created with the intent to screw in screws." Notice the actual definition refers to capacity rather than intent. So any object of the same form as a screwdriver and the same materials as a screwdriver is described in english as a screwdriver.

You are correct that our words come from concepts we have about things rather than from the things themselves. It is for this very reason that I can create a screwdriver without intending it to screw screws. It is also for this very reason that the "goals" we claim objects have originated from our concepts of those object and not from the objects themselves. Humans using this method of claiming "goals" exist are not providing evidence that "goals" exist.

[Dm]

1)Lets step away from humans and take simpler things as examples.  How do you know when something is red?  Am I correct in saying that you have this concept of "redness" in your mind to determine whether something is red?  And this concept of redness comes from your experience of red.  So in your mind, you define something as red because of this conceptual understanding of it.  Do you agree with me on this?

2)Before we go here, I would like to clear up the idea of nature, because I still think nature is universal, hence the name nature, not accidents (changes that can happen to a thing that do not change what it is; i.e. cutting off my finger does not change the fact that I am still human, and therefore it is an accidental change).

3)I didn't want to debate this here either, I agree that it doesn't matter right now.
I don't know how else to convince you if you don't want to believe evidence.

1)Yes, one does think of the red color when one says the word red. But red is only red and red only MEANS read because WE (Sorry for caps, I'm too lazy to bold the key-words) made it that way. What if Red suddenly meant Yellow and Yellow meant Red? "Red" is still the color it always was, but it has a different name now - Yellow. As such, we just changed what you think when one word is said and another one is said. Either way, I don't disagree nor agree; go on? =P

2)Wait. Wait wait wait wait. So you are telling me that accidents that happen don't change the nature?
Back to the screwdriver, you told me several times "A screwdriver is only a screwdriver if it screw screws."
If I cut off the part where it Screw the Screws, or if it breaks, according to you now, it is still a Screwdriver. But it can't Screw Screws now. Which contradicts YOUR nature (not mine, theorically). Which means that, for you

2a) The screwdriver must screw screws to be a screwdriver
or
2b) The screwdriver just has to be a screwdriver
Which means there is a different definition for the nature of the screwdriver than the one you gave us (Screw screws)...? That's a pretty conflicting idea when I put it that way.

This will be interesting for our little screwdriver debate.

3) I won't believe human evidence. I can agree with any other object you place me with. And agreeing=/= believing; if I am faced with solid evidence (Which currently, I am not), even if I don't believe I must agree, since I can't counter it.

[destruct]

1)Lets step away from humans and take simpler things as examples.  How do you know when something is red?  Am I correct in saying that you have this concept of "redness" in your mind to determine whether something is red?  And this concept of redness comes from your experience of red.  So in your mind, you define something as red because of this conceptual understanding of it.  Do you agree with me on this?

2)Before we go here, I would like to clear up the idea of nature, because I still think nature is universal, hence the name nature, not accidents (changes that can happen to a thing that do not change what it is; i.e. cutting off my finger does not change the fact that I am still human, and therefore it is an accidental change).

3)I didn't want to debate this here either, I agree that it doesn't matter right now.
I don't know how else to convince you if you don't want to believe evidence.

1)Yes, one does think of the red color when one says the word red. But red is only red and red only MEANS read because WE (Sorry for caps, I'm too lazy to bold the key-words) made it that way. What if Red suddenly meant Yellow and Yellow meant Red? "Red" is still the color it always was, but it has a different name now - Yellow. As such, we just changed what you think when one word is said and another one is said. Either way, I don't disagree nor agree; go on? =P

2)Wait. Wait wait wait wait. So you are telling me that accidents that happen don't change the nature?
Back to the screwdriver, you told me several times "A screwdriver is only a screwdriver if it screw screws."
If I cut off the part where it Screw the Screws, or if it breaks, according to you now, it is still a Screwdriver. But it can't Screw Screws now. Which contradicts YOUR nature (not mine, theorically). Which means that, for you

2a) The screwdriver must screw screws to be a screwdriver
or
2b) The screwdriver just has to be a screwdriver
Which means there is a different definition for the nature of the screwdriver than the one you gave us (Screw screws)...? That's a pretty conflicting idea when I put it that way.

This will be interesting for our little screwdriver debate.

3) I won't believe human evidence. I can agree with any other object you place me with. And agreeing=/= believing; if I am faced with solid evidence (Which currently, I am not), even if I don't believe I must agree, since I can't counter it.

That's not the accidental change I am talking about.  Not the thing where you fall and break something.  Accidents are things that can change without the nature changing (philosophy def. not English def.)
Maybe my definition of screwdriver was incorrect.  But as long as the thing follows the nature of a screwdriver, it is a screwdriver....some dictionary said screws screws?  If that isn't the correct definition then the nature of a screwdriver is something different.  Sorry for that mistake.

Its not just the word I'm talking about, it is the concept you have of redness that you get from reality, and you know when certain things are red (or whatever you wish to call it) when they have this characteristic.  Same thing with anything else, because you have a concept of the thing and that concept matches reality.  You know something is a dog when it has these characteristics, and you know someone is human when they have these characteristics, which is human nature.

[destruct]

What are you calling it?  A screwdriver still?  Because that word is specifically linked to the concept of screwing screws.  A thing can't be called a screwdriver if it doesn't do what a screwdriver does, because all of our words come from concepts, or universals, we have about a certain thing.  That thing doesn't follow the concept of screwdriverness therefore it can't be called a screwdriver.

I'm allowed to call it whatever the hell I want. Now, if I were to try to shove my definition of a "screwdriver" down your throat, you will probably have a problem with it. But I am not trying to shove my definition down your throat.

Let me spell this out for you then. You think your definition is the absolute universal truth. You think your definition is right and everyone else's definition is wrong if they disagree with you. You are trying to force your definition down my throat. This makes you an arrogant and controlling person. Your opinion is not absolute truth, even if the majority of humans agree with you.

Lets step away from humans and take simpler things as examples.  How do you know when something is red?  Am I correct in saying that you have this concept of "redness" in your mind to determine whether something is red?  And this concept of redness comes from your experience of red.  So in your mind, you define something as red because of this conceptual understanding of it.  Do you agree with me on this?

Talking about qualia now, are we?

Okay, regarding your example of redness. I know that an object, i.e. a collection of elementary particles, is red if it reflects electromagnetic radiation of wavelength 620-740 nanometers into my eyes. I don't remember the exact mechanism I learned in chemistry class last year, but the electromagnetic radiation strikes certain cells in my eyeballs, which triggers the eyeballs to send electrical signals to my brain. Depending on where the signals came from (e.g. which photoreceptor cells), the brain then interprets the signals as "red". It's a biologically pre-programmed thing, having arisen from evolution.

True, here you may say that red is some kind of universal absolute. But as I've explained above, "red" actually means "electromagnetic radiation with wavelength of 620-740 nanometers". It is a physical part of the universe, not an abstract concept. Your "nature" does not apply here because as far as I can see, it's an abstract concept, arbitrarily defined by our conscious brains.

Before we go here, I would like to clear up the idea of nature, because I still think nature is universal, hence the name nature, not accidents (changes that can happen to a thing that do not change what it is; i.e. cutting off my finger does not change the fact that I am still human, and therefore it is an accidental change).

And I do not. You're not going to convince me by repeating your point over and over.

I didn't want to debate this here either, I agree that it doesn't matter right now.
I don't know how else to convince you if you don't want to believe evidence.

At least I'll accept evidence if it presents itself in sufficient quantity and quality (e.g. anecdotal "evidence" isn't enough). Doing so may make me uncomfortable, but pretending that the evidence isn't there doesn't make it go away.

2.  The whole problem here is that you disagree with me about human nature.  Are you saying that humans have a nature, but it is this arrangement of particles, or are you saying that they don't have a nature at all?  This whole argument hinges on the basis of human nature.  So before I can go to this, let's define nature.

The nature of a thing can't change.  Because if the nature changes, it is no longer that thing.  The things that can change without the nature changing are the accidents of a thing (philosophical definition of accident).  So because the human genome can mutate, it can't be the nature.

I am saying that the closest thing we have to a "human nature" is the human genome, and even then that's an arbitrary piece of information defined by consensus. I do not think that there is anything like the sort of "human nature" you speak of.

The problem with your definition, I think, is that you keep saying "nature" is universal and cannot change. Not even an infinitesimal change? Let's say that through some feat of science, magic, or will of God, my body is transformed from that of a human to that of a wolf. The process is smooth and gradual. At which point did I stop being human? What if my mind is transformed too, in an equally gradual manner? You can say that I am human because I have a human soul, but I do not believe in souls.

Well what I'm trying to say is you can "call" that thing a screwdriver, you have the freedom of speech, but when you say something is a screwdriver we have this concept of screwdriverness that we get from seeing a million screwdrivers, and as I said in my previous post if my definition is wrong then I apologize.   I apologize for the possibly offensive nature of that post.
Nature cannot change.  Generally natures are made up of have or have not something (i.e. intellect, will,etc.)  You either have that, or you don't.  You stopped being a human when you no longer have all of the parts of human nature in you.  So then the problem is, what defines human nature?  You and I seem to disagree on that.

[OldTrees]

-snip-

Well what I'm trying to say is you can "call" that thing a screwdriver, you have the freedom of speech, but when you say something is a screwdriver we have this concept of screwdriverness that we get from seeing a million screwdrivers, and as I said in my previous post if my definition is wrong then I apologize.   I apologize for the possibly offensive nature of that post.
Nature cannot change.  Generally natures are made up of have or have not something (i.e. intellect, will,etc.)  You either have that, or you don't.  You stopped being a human when you no longer have all of the parts of human nature in you.  So then the problem is, what defines human nature?  You and I seem to disagree on that.

You need to decide if you are using nature to represent the characteristics of an object, or the goals the objects have if they have goals (screwdrivers). It is either characteristics or goals you cannot assume both as a premise and as a conclusion.

[Dm]

That's not the accidental change I am talking about.  Not the thing where you fall and break something.  Accidents are things that can change without the nature changing (philosophy def. not English def.)
Maybe my definition of screwdriver was incorrect.  But as long as the thing follows the nature of a screwdriver, it is a screwdriver....some dictionary said screws screws?  If that isn't the correct definition then the nature of a screwdriver is something different.  Sorry for that mistake.

Its not just the word I'm talking about, it is the concept you have of redness that you get from reality, and you know when certain things are red (or whatever you wish to call it) when they have this characteristic.  Same thing with anything else, because you have a concept of the thing and that concept matches reality.  You know something is a dog when it has these characteristics, and you know someone is human when they have these characteristics, which is human nature.

I'm feeling like I'm beating on a wall here. It's an accidental change. Now you're telling me it can't be that accidental change? And, again, you are assuming that the nature of the screwdriver is to screw screws. Please tell me -where- is this nature and -why- do you think that is the only possible nature for the screwdriver? I'm kind of finding that... silly, for lack of a better word -- we are pointing out things that you are not covering in your arguments and you just repeat them. Stating where is the phrase that tells me the philosophical definition of an accident = altering something without altering it's "nature".

If your definition of screwdriver is incorrect, it may very well be that your nature about the screwdriver was incorrect and all your argument with OldTrees and I about the screwdriver on top of my table not being a screwdriver despite it's capacity to screw screws is completely void and meaningless. You're contradicting yourself, here.

About the red color, BloodShadow covered that sufficiently. (I also find it odd that you replied to his lenghty, organized post in a seemingly un-organized fashion and five lines. It makes it seem like you're un-interested in this.)

[destruct]

I don't understand why you are confused.  What I am saying is that a thing has two parts:  nature, and accidents.  The nature is the core of what it means to be that thing.  Accidents are things that can change without the nature changing.  When the screwdriver breaks, it is no longer a screwdriver (it is pieces of a screwdriver that can't do anything), and therefore that is an essential change.  Me changing the color of the screwdriver is an accidental change, because it still is a screwdriver.

I looked up the definition, several places say 'a hand tool used to turn screws, made up of......"  That is why I believe the nature of a screwdriver has to at least include turning screws.  I don't see why this isn't a valid definition.

What do you mean by "where is the nature of a thing"?  How do we find it?  Or something else?

A thing can have only one nature, because a thing can't be like two things at the same time.  A thing can't be fully a square and fully a circle at the same time.  Something can be partially something and partially something else, but then it is neither thing and a different thing entirely.  Everything has one, unique nature.  Because the definition, in many places I have seen, is "this hand tool used to turn screws, made up of...." that has to be at least part of the nature of the thing.

@ OldTrees.  I am not using nature as either, all I am saying is that the nature is what it means to be that thing.  If that only requires characteristics, then it is only characteristics.  If it requires a goal, then it also encompasses goals.


I am not saying bloodshadow is wrong with his explanation about wavelengths.  But my point is that there is one common thing that everything that is perceived as red shares:  It reflects this wavelength of light.  So that one common similarity has to be part of the nature of redness.  I don't understand bloodshadows argument about nature not applying here.

[Bloodshadow]

Its not just the word I'm talking about, it is the concept you have of redness that you get from reality, and you know when certain things are red (or whatever you wish to call it) when they have this characteristic.  Same thing with anything else, because you have a concept of the thing and that concept matches reality.  You know something is a dog when it has these characteristics, and you know someone is human when they have these characteristics, which is human nature.

We define, by consensus, "red" to be "the ability to reflect electromagnetic radiation of wavelength 620-740 nm". We "know" when certain objects are red when they have this physical characteristic. Redness is a physical characteristic, not an abstract concept that exists purely in our minds. All abstract concepts are, by definition, purely defined by our minds and are thus subjective. If you try to find "human nature" based on physical characteristics rather than abstract concepts, you run into trouble because of genetic mutations and the aforementioned hypothetical human-wolf transformation.

1. Well what I'm trying to say is you can "call" that thing a screwdriver, you have the freedom of speech, but when you say something is a screwdriver we have this concept of screwdriverness that we get from seeing a million screwdrivers, and as I said in my previous post if my definition is wrong then I apologize.   I apologize for the possibly offensive nature of that post.
2. Nature cannot change.  Generally natures are made up of have or have not something (i.e. intellect, will,etc.)  You either have that, or you don't.  You stopped being a human when you no longer have all of the parts of human nature in you.  So then the problem is, what defines human nature?  You and I seem to disagree on that.

1. You just don't seem to realize that consensus does not make something an objective truth, no matter how many people agree to it.

2. You're still claiming that "nature" exists despite the many problems we've raised. So far you haven't been able to resolve any of the problems. Yet you're still insisting that it exists despite the problems. The reason I don't think "nature" exists is because of the many problems it would have if it existed.

I'm feeling like I'm beating on a wall here.

Same. It feels like he's grasping at straws here and simply refusing to give up.

Speaking of screwdrivers. What's the "nature" of the Doctor's sonic screwdriver?

1. I don't understand why you are confused.  What I am saying is that a thing has two parts:  nature, and accidents.  The nature is the core of what it means to be that thing.  Accidents are things that can change without the nature changing.  When the screwdriver breaks, it is no longer a screwdriver (it is pieces of a screwdriver that can't do anything), and therefore that is an essential change.  Me changing the color of the screwdriver is an accidental change, because it still is a screwdriver.

[snip]

2. A thing can have only one nature, because a thing can't be like two things at the same time.  A thing can't be fully a square and fully a circle at the same time.  Something can be partially something and partially something else, but then it is neither thing and a different thing entirely.  Everything has one, unique nature.  Because the definition, in many places I have seen, is "this hand tool used to turn screws, made up of...." that has to be at least part of the nature of the thing.

3. @ OldTrees.  I am not using nature as either, all I am saying is that the nature is what it means to be that thing.  If that only requires characteristics, then it is only characteristics.  If it requires a goal, then it also encompasses goals.

4. I am not saying bloodshadow is wrong with his explanation about wavelengths.  But my point is that there is one common thing that everything that is perceived as red shares:  It reflects this wavelength of light.  So that one common similarity has to be part of the nature of redness.  I don't understand bloodshadows argument about nature not applying here.

1. Let me summarize this. Again. You're saying that "nature" is objective, absolute, immutable. Now, that "nature" can either be a collection of physical characteristics, a collection of abstract concepts, or a collection of both. By definition, abstract concepts exist only in our minds and are thus subjective. Physical characteristics are highly mutable and don't work either. Hence why we think "nature" doesn't exist. You seem to be insisting that it still exists despite these problems, and saying that these problems exist because we're just not looking hard enough.

2. a) Every single "thing" in existence has a unique "nature" that is different from the "nature" of every other "thing" in existence? So my nature is different from yours despite us both being humans?
b) What's the cardinality of the set of all possible "natures" then? Countably or uncountably infinite?

3. And I am saying that the "meaning" of a "thing" is only defined by us humans, hence an objective "nature" can't exist.

4. See #1.

[Dm]

I'm confused with what seems to be contradictions in your line of thought.

I am asking what defines and where is it defined that accidents must not change the nature of something.

If the screwdriver breaks, then there are pieces of the screwdriver, you say -- When, in theory, they aren't pieces of the screwdriver as they are not considered a screwdriver (the pieces themselves do not screw screws, according to you.) What defines that the accident must not change the nature of something? Is there any basis behind that assumption?

As for looking up the definition -- If a lot of people tell you that murder is right, you do it? Is that it's definition, it's "nature" now? The Screwdriver has the function to screw screws. When it's not doing that function it can't be a screwdriver? My screwdriver on top of a table ain't a screwdriver?

People ask me, "what's that on top of the table?". What do I answer?

"Well, that USED to be a screwdriver, but since I'm not screwing screws now..." The screwdriver is still a screwdriver. If we go by your definition, the nature of something can only be attained when it is doing the act - the goal.

FURTHER ON : You said that the nature of it you found when "searching". If I ask to any person in the world what is that on top of my table, they will tell me - It's a screwdriver. According to you, it is not a screwdriver. It would be a screwdriver if it could screw screws, but since it's not screwing screws, it's not a screwdriver. But, everyone THINKS it's a screwdriver. Who is right -- you, or them? (Please be reminded that I am saying this because you said you looked for what screwdriver means and found that.)

What I mean by where is the nature or why, I'm asking you - Why is the nature of the screwdriver to screw screws and not to have the CAPACITY to screw screws? And where is it explicit that that is the nature of the screwdriver, the basis behind that assumption?

[destruct]

We define, by consensus, "red" to be "the ability to reflect electromagnetic radiation of wavelength 620-740 nm". We "know" when certain objects are red when they have this physical characteristic. Redness is a physical characteristic, not an abstract concept that exists purely in our minds. All abstract concepts are, by definition, purely defined by our minds and are thus subjective. If you try to find "human nature" based on physical characteristics rather than abstract concepts, you run into trouble because of genetic mutations and the aforementioned hypothetical human-wolf transformation.

We get abstract concepts in our minds through a process called abstraction ,where we take physical things, take their similarities, and we have now a concept of that thing.  These concepts are based on reality, not just made up randomly.  Therefore, our concept of "humans" is based on humans themselves, so our concept of human nature is based on the real human nature

Speaking of screwdrivers. What's the "nature" of the Doctor's sonic screwdriver?

That thing isn't real.  I'm not even sure what that thing is, so I'm not going to try to define a nature for something that I haven't seen in reality.

1. I don't understand why you are confused.  What I am saying is that a thing has two parts:  nature, and accidents.  The nature is the core of what it means to be that thing.  Accidents are things that can change without the nature changing.  When the screwdriver breaks, it is no longer a screwdriver (it is pieces of a screwdriver that can't do anything), and therefore that is an essential change.  Me changing the color of the screwdriver is an accidental change, because it still is a screwdriver.

[snip]

2. A thing can have only one nature, because a thing can't be like two things at the same time.  A thing can't be fully a square and fully a circle at the same time.  Something can be partially something and partially something else, but then it is neither thing and a different thing entirely.  Everything has one, unique nature.  Because the definition, in many places I have seen, is "this hand tool used to turn screws, made up of...." that has to be at least part of the nature of the thing.

3. @ OldTrees.  I am not using nature as either, all I am saying is that the nature is what it means to be that thing.  If that only requires characteristics, then it is only characteristics.  If it requires a goal, then it also encompasses goals.

4. I am not saying bloodshadow is wrong with his explanation about wavelengths.  But my point is that there is one common thing that everything that is perceived as red shares:  It reflects this wavelength of light.  So that one common similarity has to be part of the nature of redness.  I don't understand bloodshadows argument about nature not applying here.
[\quote]

1. Let me summarize this. Again. You're saying that "nature" is objective, absolute, immutable. Now, that "nature" can either be a collection of physical characteristics, a collection of abstract concepts, or a collection of both. By definition, abstract concepts exist only in our minds and are thus subjective. Physical characteristics are highly mutable and don't work either. Hence why we think "nature" doesn't exist. You seem to be insisting that it still exists despite these problems, and saying that these problems exist because we're just not looking hard enough.

2. a) Every single "thing" in existence has a unique "nature" that is different from the "nature" of every other "thing" in existence? So my nature is different from yours despite us both being humans?
b) What's the cardinality of the set of all possible "natures" then? Countably or uncountably infinite?

3. And I am saying that the "meaning" of a "thing" is only defined by us humans, hence an objective "nature" can't exist.

4. See #1.

I should have said each type of thing has a unique nature.
There are as many natures are there are types of things.

We certainly define things, but we get that definition from objective reality.