4 ms·

I believe it may be much more fruitful to observe and talk about our conception of holes rather than discussing any kind of ontological existence. We only perc

I believe it may be much more fruitful to observe and talk about our conception of holes rather than discussing any kind of ontological existence. We only perceive a hole as some kind of entity because our perception works in such a way that it preferably recognizes simpler, smaller and more “figure”-like shapes (see Gestalt psychology). I think that this perception of a single, coherent unit leads us to believe that there is some kind of independent existence, which is why we talk about holes in the first place. But there is nothing special about holes that we could not attribute to the properties of space itself or the physical shape of their sorrounding objects. Where does a hole begin and where does it end? What “is” a hole independent of any host object? Why do we not just talk about complex shapes, why do we even need to talk about holes? The idea that holes can move (as opposed to a region of space) is just part of the idea of holes itself and does not follow from any observation about physical holes. It may still be interesting to explore how we talk about holes and what our concept of a hole constitutes. The idea of holes is after all very useful in various fields (even computer science – see “typed holes”, maybe even the idea of the zero was inspired by holes). I have the impression that the article actually discusses exactly that but seems to be more concerned with the existence of holes, which, from my perspective, is a meaningless endeavour. But I am not a philosopher so maybe there is a context or method here that I don’t know/understand.

barrysteve 4y ago
The author does appear to push for seeing holes as adequate reason to validate the word and he rails against it. It is easier to analyze the word 'hole' as a credible belief we all share, which we do. We can describe round holes, square holes, dirt holes, hexagonal holes in beeswax. It's a Platonic shape with describable properties. Digging holes is one of the best methods of revealing gold flakes. How would one describe the result of digging for core samples, without using hole, pit, cut or anything else that suggests a subtraction. The core sample drill rig extended it's drill onto the earth's surface. A pile of excess dirt grew next to the drill rig as it moved further towards the nadir. When the drilling cycle completed, a cylindrical column of rock had been added to the drill rig. The drill rig drove the rock to coordinates x,y,z of the mine site. The drill rig arrived at the mine site storage facility, which obtained four smaller rock columns and they were stored in 4 containers for analysis... The column of Rock was separated from the ground and cut into pieces, but we made no mention of it. But we believe the cuts still happened and the hole in the ground from drilling exits, otherwise we cannot validate the correctness of separating the rock into 4 separate containers, nor can we reveal what happened after the drill rig arrived. There is no defined boundary between earth and rock, any earth could do as a sample. A hole is where rock isn't, and thus we can show two separate conceptions of rock and thus validate them. Treating holes as a figure of speech, like the author attempts, is no different to treating wind as a figure of speech because we can't see it directly. After all, what we see directly, is the trees adopt complex motions when it gets windy. Is the wind causing trees to bend, a 'hole' in stillness for our trees?

barrysteve 4y ago

The author does appear to push for seeing holes as adequate reason to validate the word and he rails against it. It is easier to analyze the word 'hole' as a credible belief we all share, which we do. We can describe round holes, square holes, dirt holes, hexagonal holes in beeswax. It's a Platonic shape with describable properties. Digging holes is one of the best methods of revealing gold flakes. How would one describe the result of digging for core samples, without using hole, pit, cut or anything else that suggests a subtraction. The core sample drill rig extended it's drill onto the earth's surface. A pile of excess dirt grew next to the drill rig as it moved further towards the nadir. When the drilling cycle completed, a cylindrical column of rock had been added to the drill rig. The drill rig drove the rock to coordinates x,y,z of the mine site. The drill rig arrived at the mine site storage facility, which obtained four smaller rock columns and they were stored in 4 containers for analysis... The column of Rock was separated from the ground and cut into pieces, but we made no mention of it. But we believe the cuts still happened and the hole in the ground from drilling exits, otherwise we cannot validate the correctness of separating the rock into 4 separate containers, nor can we reveal what happened after the drill rig arrived. There is no defined boundary between earth and rock, any earth could do as a sample. A hole is where rock isn't, and thus we can show two separate conceptions of rock and thus validate them. Treating holes as a figure of speech, like the author attempts, is no different to treating wind as a figure of speech because we can't see it directly. After all, what we see directly, is the trees adopt complex motions when it gets windy. Is the wind causing trees to bend, a 'hole' in stillness for our trees?