I stand a few feet from a tree. On the opposite side of the tree, hanging on the bark and looking at me, is a squirrel. I begin to walk in a circle that has the tree as it's center. As I walk, the squirrel stays opposite my position, its belly always facing toward me. Once I walk around the tree, have I walked around gthe squirrel?
What does this scenario say about ones definition(s) of "around"?
2006-11-18 13:22:15 · 12 answers · asked by neil s 7 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
You walked around the tree, but you didn't walk around the squirrel. You walked PAST the squirrel.
2006-11-18 13:26:27 · answer #1 · answered by I Am Legend 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
LOL!! Yes you walked around the squirrel. Picture this: a circle you on the outside, now mark the center(this would be the tree), put a mark to represent the squirrel beside the "tree", now draw a circle around the tree to represent the squirrels path. As you can see your path completely surrounds both the tree and the squirrels path so you have circled the squirrel or walked around it. You did not cross it's path or even see it but you went around it none the less.
2006-11-18 13:36:02 · answer #2 · answered by William J 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Language is limitless... but always use spell check.
Mathematically, you did walk around the squirrel.
Logically, you took a walk around a tree with a squirrel.
Technically, you have too much time on your hands to be chasing squirrels around trees.
2006-11-18 15:27:02 · answer #3 · answered by Oh, I see 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have walked around the tree only not around the squirrel.
2006-11-18 16:15:47 · answer #4 · answered by Alrahcam 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No you didn't walk around the squirrel...
The squirrel was moving. You have to take that into account.
In reference to the squirrel alone, there is no change, you stand at a fixed distance the whole time.
Does a racecar driver travel around another driver on the opposite side of the track who travels at the same speed? -- no...
2006-11-18 20:40:15 · answer #5 · answered by -.- 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Some people place a lot of emphasis on the "logic" function of language. It is true that language can represent logical operations, and that new truths can be realized by following these logical operations.
However, under any close examination, the semantic component of language seems to break down pretty quickly, which means the logic function of language will reach its limits. For logic to work, you must define your terms. The problem you pose really asks about the definition of "around."
But the primary function of language is not to act as a carrier of logical structures. Nor is it even to exchange information. For language to succeed at all, I must already know almost all of what you say. At most, you might put existing knowledge into a new arrangement, which is basically a grammatical function. The primary function of language, in my opinion, is for people to compare notes, if you will. We use language as a way to hone each other's understanding of reality into a consistent and mutually agreeable pattern. This is why language is inseparable from culture.
Your question about the limits of language is fun, but it has its limits.
2006-11-18 13:35:09 · answer #6 · answered by just me 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
While you did indeed circumnavigate the tree, you remained parallel to the squirrel and did not circle, or go "around," the li'l furry one.
I'd rather answer the broader question, "What is the limit of language," but I resist, lest I get busted for not answering the specific query posed.
2006-11-18 13:33:16 · answer #7 · answered by macguffin 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Williiam J is correct, as he states his definitions, but consider it from the squirrel's frame of reference.
You never got to go behind him, but remained always in front of him: In no way would the squirrel admit that you you went "around".him.
Almost all terms carry some degree of ambiguity and the potential for mis-communication. But pedantic levels of formality or clarification slows and dulls communication.
Go for simple language, and just watch out for errors?
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead."
(but then, torpedoes didn't mean torpedoes, then.(URL below))
2006-11-18 14:32:27 · answer #8 · answered by Pedestal 42 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This a frame of reference problem!
This question is something like this:
I mover aroung the world.
My spouse mover around me.
My child moves around my spouse.
Is there any word to specify the motion of my child with respect to me?
The word is PRECESSION motion.
2006-11-18 13:55:40 · answer #9 · answered by The Knowledge Server 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, you walked around him, but with his belly facing you. Oh yeah, you stole this from william sidis.
2006-11-18 13:38:28 · answer #10 · answered by clamcrunchies2 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋