A circular square
bleuh111
Posts: 2,219 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Or a square that is also a circle.
That's an inherent logical contradiction; intuitively, we all know that as squares and circles are totally incongruent and incompatible shapes, a square that is also a circle is by definition impossible.
Therefore "There is no such thing as a circular square" would seem like an entirely truthful and in no way controversial statement.
Many of us would also intuitively regard the above statement as semantically equivalent to stating "A circular square does not exist".
Yet when phrased in this second form, the statement can be seen as controversial and not necessarily something we can just accept as true as we would when we say it in the first form.
If I cannot conceive of a circular square, what position am I in to make statements about whether it does or does not exist? And what does this say about the perceived equivalency of "there is" against "exists"?
This is a problem I was reading about last night from eminent philosophers' points of view and considering the problem myself.
I think DS:GD gives a reasonable cross-section of a population. Probably not a strong enough cross-section that polls conducted here, for example, would be expected to mirror closely the result of a poll conducted of a statistically representative sample from the UK's entire population, but still, there is unarguably as wide range of demographics represented here.
So what I want to know, for the purposes of writing up my thoughts on the issue of the circular square from an ontological viewpoint, is this: how does the average person here see/reconcile this problem? Can you say "there is no such thing as a circular square"? Can you say "a circular square does not exist"? Do you view those two statements as identical in meaning?
That's an inherent logical contradiction; intuitively, we all know that as squares and circles are totally incongruent and incompatible shapes, a square that is also a circle is by definition impossible.
Therefore "There is no such thing as a circular square" would seem like an entirely truthful and in no way controversial statement.
Many of us would also intuitively regard the above statement as semantically equivalent to stating "A circular square does not exist".
Yet when phrased in this second form, the statement can be seen as controversial and not necessarily something we can just accept as true as we would when we say it in the first form.
If I cannot conceive of a circular square, what position am I in to make statements about whether it does or does not exist? And what does this say about the perceived equivalency of "there is" against "exists"?
This is a problem I was reading about last night from eminent philosophers' points of view and considering the problem myself.
I think DS:GD gives a reasonable cross-section of a population. Probably not a strong enough cross-section that polls conducted here, for example, would be expected to mirror closely the result of a poll conducted of a statistically representative sample from the UK's entire population, but still, there is unarguably as wide range of demographics represented here.
So what I want to know, for the purposes of writing up my thoughts on the issue of the circular square from an ontological viewpoint, is this: how does the average person here see/reconcile this problem? Can you say "there is no such thing as a circular square"? Can you say "a circular square does not exist"? Do you view those two statements as identical in meaning?
0
Comments
It also could depend on your observational frame of reference. For example if you viewed a square from a perspective that introduced barrel distortion - the square could appear circular to the observer (e.g. A more extreme version of this)
http://www.clker.com/cliparts/9/3/9/f/1303924019838959147Barrel_distortion.svg.hi.png
Well this is why I'm asking the DS:GD community for a sample of answers....obviously what people fundamentally mean / intend to communicate when they say something is a very important part of philosophical consideration when one is pondering such matters as "are statements 'is there' and 'exists' semantically equal?"
Ummm Ten past Three?
But I won't really bother unless I feel going through the exercise will bring me some benefit. I'm a bit of a pragmatist like that.
It must at least help me sleep - that's my justification for attempting to resolve classical and quantum physics intuitively each night.
No; but it can be seen as a rather pointless word game.
This is the kind of problem you get when people use the wrong tool. To describe a circle you should not be using philosophical or quasi-philosophical terms but a compass.
OK, before I start, I have to say first that I don't see any validity in the statement above. Neither is more unequivocal or controversial than the other.
Now, back to the question in hand....
Obviously, I know what a circle is, and how it is defined. I also know what a square is and how it is defined. I also knwo that the two definitions are incompatible and it would not be possible to have something that conformed to the rules that define a circle and the rules that define a square simultaneously.
However, if someone talked to me about a circular square, I would not instantly denounce is spock-like as some sort of illogicality, but rather assume that the person talking about it meant something different, like a slightly rounded off square (even though it would meet the definition of neither).
Incidentally, did you know that a 50p and 20p are not actually heptagons. They are some special rounded-off heptagon, where the distance across through the centre is always equal, so that it works in coin sorting machines. True story....
I say, if such a thing exists. Show me. Same as for your original premise of "Here is my website where I attempt to logic things into existence and you must prove me wrong".
a) square circles do not and cannot exist
b) the statements "there is no such thing as a square circle" and "square circles do not exist" are semantically identical
c) if one statement is true, the other must necessarily also be true due to the perceived semantic equivalence of "there is" and "exists"
Thanks guys!
And here we have a perfect example of "I only see what I want to see".
Of the replies so far (to the above post)
4 Disagreed (2,6,9,11)
3 Made a funny (3,7,12)
2 Thought the question was invalid (8,10)
1 Agreed (5)
So how you came to those conclusions I have no idea
Just to expand things further, in your OP your referred to circular squares, whereas in this post you refer to square circles. Are they the same ?
In my mind, I can conceive of what someone 'might' mean if they talked to me of circular squares (i.e, something like a square but with bowed sides and rounded corners, but I would alway see a square circle as meaningless..
Does anything ever happen in your life that fails to support your preconceived notions Bleuh?
"Squaring the circle" as a metaphor
The futility of exercises aimed at finding the quadrature of the circle has lent itself to metaphors describing a hopeless, meaningless, or vain undertaking.
Which of a, b or c do you disagree with then? Yes, wording in the replies to this thread were varied, but it's clear that very few people are willing to claim in earnest that a square that is also a circle exists, could exist, or that the statement "a square that is also a circle exists" is semantically different to the statement "there is a square that is also a circle". And that's all I wanted to know. There isn't any philosophical point, debate, discussion or preconceived ideas coming from me in this thread. I just posed three questions and read the responses, for my own purposes.
It's area will be one square mile.
I kind of hesitate to answer this, because out of any context, it reads to me very much like a loaded question - I'm not actually claiming myself that there is a difference between statements of "exists" and "there is", but the reason I was asking here - and the reason I put forth that in certain contexts, the statement "a square that is also a circle does not exist" can be potentially contentious - relates to material I'm reading about the relation of existence, abstract ideas and impossible abstract ideas. Bertrand Russell and Alexius Meinong are the two main philosophers whose thoughts are relevant to what I'm reading about (and writing something about, which is not relevant to this forum) at the moment, but I just want to be clear - I'm not claiming that either of those two people held that there is a necessary and fundamental difference between statements of "is" and "exists".