[Ambient]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

This breaks the fundamental logical principle known as the law of non-contradiction. Q cannot possibly equal not-Q.

So because we are giving an actual occurence different names, that is a contradiction? For instance, let us say that we have an orange.



The english name for this fruit is "orange", which clearly highlights the colour of the fruit. Infact the word "orange" was first applied to the colour, and laterwards the fruit was given the name on account of it's colour. So this is the common association given off by the word "orange"; that of appearance. However, appearance is not the only characteristics of the fruit I have mentioned and illustrated above.

One who has experienced an orange knows that it's colour is not it's only quality. For instance there is juice, an orange is juicy. Well, suppose upon this we decide that its juice is more significant than its colour, and that this current name is insufficient. We should indicate that it is "juicy" through it's name; why don't we call it a "juicy fruit"?

Well for one, there will be traditionalists who will say "this is not called "juicy fruit", this is called "orange"". Even though this fruit is in actuality, both juicy in texture and orange in colour. There is also the matter that there is a variety of juicy fruits, and quite a few orange coloured fruits. Either way, the one who calls this fruit "orange" and the one who calls this fruit "juicy" are by no means contradicting themselves.

It is noteworthy, that one who defends the orange as a being of appearance, who makes the identification with the name, instead of thing, has quite possibly never experienced the thing, but has experienced the name. Perhaps this persons knows the name, and has also seen the image. When this person encounters another, who has had direct experience, the ignorant person will most likeley be shocked, and potentially hostile and defensive.

The experienced man will say:

This fruit is not only orange, but has dimpled skin, it's skin has acidic taste, the flesh has a fibrous exterior, and is sweet to the taste as well as juicy. Not only this, but there are seeds within it, and if you place them within the ground, it will grow back into what it came from; into an orange tree.

Obviously, this description would appear contradictory to the ignorant inexperienced man. He may say something like "oh, but Q cannot be non-Q; orange cannot be sweet, or juicy or grow! Orange is a colour! YOU ARE INSANE AND CRAZY!"

But I know that an orange fruit is more than its colour, and that the name is different from the thing. I have described a very particular thing, this particular thing is actually existing. A person with basic intelligence can see that the descriptions made about this orange fruit do not change its characteristic, just as the absence of a name does not means that the orange fruit is not existing. In the same way the universal thing is actually existing. We may give it different names and highlight distinct characteristics, though we are contemplating the same actual occurence.