Essence/quality exists objectively
Take a triangle and square of the same size, surface area, etc. Quantitatively, they are identical, but that would be absurd to say. A square is not a triangle. Ergo, they must be differentiated, qualified, according to their essentiality, differentiated according to what they ARE as opposed to their dimensions.
Nihilists, atheistcucks, positivists, etc. BTFO
dude traingle dont mean anything lmaoo
>>939030
They are differentiated by position, even if they were created at the same instant.
>>939052
No, they're differentiated by what they are. I don't know what you mean by position.
>>939060
If you simultaneously have triangle a and triangle b, even if they were otherwise identical they would occupy different locations in space.
>>939070
I said square and a triangle m8.
Your argument would only position them in space. By that logic two identical triangles would be different from one other because they don't occupy the same space, which is crazy
>>939095
Yes, but if we could distinguish two otherwise identical triangles simply by position, we could also distinguish a square and triangle by the same criteria. Thus, they are not solely differentiated by "essence," whatever that means.
Now also comes the problem of their "dimensions". Triangles have a sum of internal angles of 180. Squares have a sum of internal angles of 360. These qualities are not substantially different from what you are defining as "dimensions."
>>939123
No, two identical triangles distinguished purely by position would be saying "quantitively, they are different, ergo these triangles are not the same" which would be absurd.
How exactly would "two shapes, one at point A, the other at point B, are different" tell me anything about the shapes themselves? The distinction is a qualitative one.
But OP a square is just two triangles combined. Just like every thing is just a combination of molecules. There is no inherent quality. Just a combination of quantities.
>>939141
They aren't the same. They are two different triangles, not one triangle. They are otherwise identical, but "otherwise identical" and "identical" are separate terms. A better term would be "congruent. "
>tell me anything about the shapes themselves?
It would tell you that one shape is at point A and one is at point B, thus they really are two separate shapes assuming the form of measurement is consistent.
>>939151
Obviously it would prove there are two shapes that are not existing in the same space, but it would tell me nothing about the shapes themselves.
>>939145
Then why do we talk of squares when we can just say "two triangles together" or a circle when we can just say "two semi circles together"? The whole is prior to its parts. Quality is an emergent property of the interaction of these parts
OP until you can explain what essence and inherent quality means you don't got shit.
>>939173
The same reason we speak of sock instead of knitted fabric. and human instead of humps of flesh and water. We categorise things, doesn't mean these categories have any validity.
>>939194
So wait, is the whole prior to its parts or does the whole emerge from the parts?
>>939199
The whole IS its parts.
>>939030
Both are made up from lines.
See you on page ten, fagtron.
>>939203
>a shirt and a sock are the same thing because they're made of the same fabric
The autism is real.
The whole is the quality produced by the sum interactions of its parts, said interactions not being reducible to the simple properties of its parts.
>>939208
>what is reading comprehension
>>939206
Yeah, no shit, but that doesn't tell me what a triangle or a square is does it? See you on reddit dipshit
>lay string on the floor in the shape of a triangle
>pick it up, rearrange it in the shape of a square
TREMBLE BEFORE THE MIGHT OF THE ALCHEMISTS, YE UNWORTHY SODS
>>939206
They can be made from lines but are not necessarily so.
>>939234
XD!!!
>>939220
We know what a triangle and a square is because we defined them, dipshit.
>>939030
They are differentiated because of their numbers of sides. You're a retard.
>>939030
>still talking about "objective" or "subjective" things
Stay primitive, dumb frogposter.
