3 ms·
That's not the distinction I'm talking about. I'm talking about the distinction between an object that actually was created at the relevant time period, and on
by jessriedel 10y ago
That's not the distinction I'm talking about. I'm talking about the distinction between an object that actually was created at the relevant time period, and one that was created later to mimic one (perhaps indistinguishably so).
- ChuckMcM 10y agoThat is the thing though, there is no distinction. Try the following thought experiment, "Hagar the shipwright makes a boat for Eric the Red, then trips and falls into a frozen lake where he is frozen for 1500 years, when he is discovered he is thawed out, whereupon he goes to the same forest he always goes to, cuts down the same kinds of trees he always cuts down, and builds another boat." Both boats are original, one is "old" and one is "new", but their time of creation has no impact on their originality. You are perhaps seeking a distinction that does not exist.
- jessriedel 10y agoNo. We have a continuum of examples connecting almost all distinction we draw. The existence of continuums is not evidence against the supreme usefulness of identifying extremely bimodal distributions. Ring species do not negate the meaningfulness of species. "Number of parts replaced" interpolates between restorations and original, but it doesn't invalidate the distinction. Hypothetical time-traveling vikings does not invalidate the distinction between "original", as the word is commonly understood, and "original", as you've insisted it should be used.