Re: Identity, and then sneaking in some geopolitics (Re: New Creationist Ploy)
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 04:48 PM Monday 10/27/2008, Claes Wallin wrote: [snip] Modern version (and possibly a digression): (1) If a country's government is forced out of the capital and loses control of most of the country, is the area controlled by that government still the original country, only with a drastically diminished territory? (2) If the opposition of a country's government forces the government out of the capital and announces a new constitution, is the entity ruled by the new constitution simply the same country, only with a new constitution? In 1949-1972 the governments of the world seem to have felt that the answer to (1) was yes and the answer to (2) was no. In 1972 the position was reversed. So which is true? Which specific country[ies] are you thinking of which changed in 1949 and 1972? The Chinese Nationalist Party of the Republic of China were driven to Taiwan by the Chinese Communist Party in 1949, and the People's Republic of China was founded in Beijing. The world still considered the ROC to be the real China and the PRC had no official diplomatic relations and was not recognized as a country. In 1972 the countries of the world changed their mind and recognized the PRC as a country. The ROC lost its acknowledged countryhood and official diplomatic relations and the PRC received the China chair in the UN. According to the Mereological Theory of Identity (MTI), that the scavenger's ship or the disassembled+assembled ship would be the original ship of Theseus, the PRC is the natural successor of the pre-Civil War China. The PRC government rules over most of the Chinese cultural/geographical area and the most of the Chinese population. According to the Spatio-Temporal Continuity (STC) theory, that the ship Theseus is on and the parts of which were gradually replaced, the ROC is the natural successor of the pre-Civil War China. Indeed, the name The Republic of China was the name of the country founded in 1912, and which encompassed most of the Chinese cultural/geographical area and most of the Chinese population. When founded, it did not include Taiwan, but the planks of Taiwan were added at the end of World War II and Mainland China was removed in 1949. To be sure, China is not the only interesting country in this aspect. See East and West Germany, Czechia and Slovakia, the former Yugoslavian countries, the North and the South in the American Civil War etc. But China is more interesting, because it is still ambiguous today -- both governments call themselves the real China. /c ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Identity, and then sneaking in some geopolitics (Re: New Creationist Ploy)
On Oct 28, 2008, at 1:47 AM, Claes Wallin wrote: To be sure, China is not the only interesting country in this aspect. See East and West Germany, Czechia and Slovakia, the former Yugoslavian countries, the North and the South in the American Civil War etc. But China is more interesting, because it is still ambiguous today -- both governments call themselves the real China. Slovakia is a somewhat more interesting case, as (if I remember correctly) it is almost entirely made up of land that used to be part of Hungary, which (like most of the countries bordering on Hungary) took control of Hungarian territory when Hungary entirely disbanded its armed forces after WWI. (Hungary is the only country I know of which borders entirely on land that used to belong to it. Before WWI and the union with Austria, its borders extended to the edges of the Carpathian Basin and included Slovakia, Transylvania, and parts of former Yugoslavia (including the Adriatic coast around Split, I think), Austria, and the Czech Republic. Esztergom, which used to be one of the major central cities, is now on the border.) Transylvania in particular is still very bilingual and bicultural, and many of the church liturgies are almost exclusively Hungarian, despite fairly strong pressure from the Romanian government (particularly during the Ceaucescu regime) to assimilate into Romania. So, returning to the original subject, is it Hungary, Romania, or something else all its own? :) (My vote goes to #3.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Identity, and then sneaking in some geopolitics (Re: New Creationist Ploy)
Bruce Bostwick wrote: Hungary is the only country I know of which borders entirely on land that used to belong to it. Austria, Mexico, Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Italy, Peru ... Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Identity, and then sneaking in some geopolitics (Re: New Creationist Ploy)
At 01:47 AM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Claes Wallin wrote: Ronn! Blankenship wrote: [snip] Which specific country[ies] are you thinking of which changed in 1949 and 1972? The Chinese Nationalist Party of the Republic of China were driven to Taiwan by the Chinese Communist Party in 1949, and the People's Republic of China was founded in Beijing. The world still considered the ROC to be the real China and the PRC had no official diplomatic relations and was not recognized as a country. In 1972 the countries of the world changed their mind and recognized the PRC as a country. The ROC lost its acknowledged countryhood and official diplomatic relations and the PRC received the China chair in the UN. Thanks! . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Identity, and then sneaking in some geopolitics (Re: New Creationist Ploy)
Mauro Diotallevi wrote: I shed skin cells all the time, and they are replaced by new cells. The skin I had 20 years ago is literally not the same skin I have now. Does that mean my skin doesn't exist, or is only as real in the same way a whirlpool is real? I am firmly of the opinion that your skin is real. You may say that it is real in the same way that a whirlpool is real, or the Great Red Spot of Jupiter. If your skin is more real than the whirlpool, simply because its constituent matter is replaced at a slower pace ... assume that the Spot, or something else of similar characteristics, has a replacement cycle longer than that of your skin. Is then that Spot more real than your skin? I find the above not a very interesting discussion. More interesting is the question of identity. Since I have stated that your skin exists, I can also ask if your skin now is the same as your skin 20 years ago. In the case of myself, my intuition tells me that I am the same person occupying the same body that I was and occupied twenty years ago. Mostly because this is a useful and intuitive definition of identity. I have changed a lot, but I am the same person. There are cases where the intuitive definition is less obvious. This is the classical problem of identity and the ship of Theseus. Good summary available here: http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/theseus.html Summary of the summary: - If Theseus has a ship and replaces a plank in the ship, is it still the same ship? - If he subsequently has replaced all the planks and other parts of the ship, is it still the same ship? - If a scavenger took each part as Theseus threw it away and built those into a replica of his ship, which ship is the original? The one Theseus is on, or the one the scavenger built, which consists of all the parts of the original? - If we put Theseus's ship in dry dock, disassembled it and again assembled it, is our intuition as to the identity of the newly assembled ship still the same as in the case of the scavenger? Modern version (and possibly a digression): (1) If a country's government is forced out of the capital and loses control of most of the country, is the area controlled by that government still the original country, only with a drastically diminished territory? (2) If the opposition of a country's government forces the government out of the capital and announces a new constitution, is the entity ruled by the new constitution simply the same country, only with a new constitution? In 1949-1972 the governments of the world seem to have felt that the answer to (1) was yes and the answer to (2) was no. In 1972 the position was reversed. So which is true? I believe that both propositions are true and that people should just get along, decide on some functional-enough terminology on the two countries and move on to find something more useful on which to spend their energy... /c ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Identity, and then sneaking in some geopolitics (Re: New Creationist Ploy)
At 04:48 PM Monday 10/27/2008, Claes Wallin wrote: [snip] Modern version (and possibly a digression): (1) If a country's government is forced out of the capital and loses control of most of the country, is the area controlled by that government still the original country, only with a drastically diminished territory? (2) If the opposition of a country's government forces the government out of the capital and announces a new constitution, is the entity ruled by the new constitution simply the same country, only with a new constitution? In 1949-1972 the governments of the world seem to have felt that the answer to (1) was yes and the answer to (2) was no. In 1972 the position was reversed. So which is true? Which specific country[ies] are you thinking of which changed in 1949 and 1972? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
