Page 1 of 6

Wood and Chair question

Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2014 5:08 pm
by Petals
Hi all,

This is my first post :)

I have been wondering this for some time. My question may be badly formuated, so apologies! Is there a word to differenciate two objects, one which is 'natural' and the other which has been constructed. i.e wood and chair?
Although wood has intrinsic existence, a chair does not (chairs are constructs). I am looking for a word or theory that converys this.

Any ideas??

Many thanks!

Petals

Re: Wood and Chair question

Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2014 10:25 pm
by Ginkgo
Petals wrote:Hi all,

This is my first post :)

I have been wondering this for some time. My question may be badly formuated, so apologies! Is there a word to differenciate two objects, one which is 'natural' and the other which has been constructed. i.e wood and chair?
Although wood has intrinsic existence, a chair does not (chairs are constructs). I am looking for a word or theory that converys this.

Any ideas??

Many thanks!

Petals
The answer you are looking for might be found in Aristotle's causation theory. Probably efficient cause.

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

Re: Wood and Chair question

Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2014 4:47 am
by Impenitent
I'm stumped....

-Imp

Re: Wood and Chair question

Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2014 5:01 am
by Bill Wiltrack
.



I think the word you are looking for is intrinsic.



Intrinsic value is an ethical and philosophic property. It is the ethical or philosophic value that an object has "in itself" or "for its own sake", as an intrinsic property. An object with intrinsic value may be regarded as an end or (in Kantian terminology) end-in-itself.

It is contrasted with instrumental value (or extrinsic value), the value of which depends on how much it generates intrinsic value. For an eudaemonist, happiness has intrinsic value, while having a family may not have intrinsic value, yet be instrumental, since it generates happiness. Intrinsic value is a term employed in axiology, the study of quality or value.


...so, a chair, does have intrinsic value.


.

Re: Wood and Chair question

Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2014 8:00 pm
by Petals
Hi,

Thanks very much to all of you..
Bill, Upon reading your answer I thought you would end by saying a chair does NOT have intrinsic value but you state the opposite... Could you explain?

In fact, to clarify, what I would really like to convery is this. ( I am imagining the chair is a wooden chair, by the way). 'Wood' and 'chair' are both words. However one does exist per se (wood) while the other does not (chair, in the sense of natural existence).

So, I am very interested in the dichotomy of language, really. Both are words, yet one exists and the other does not. I.e words can convery reality and unreality in equal measure. And thus, words fail to differentiate real existence from constructed existence.

So, my question bridges existence with language and a almost deception that may exist. Any theories linking to this?? :)

Re: Wood and Chair question

Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2014 10:21 pm
by Arising_uk
Petals wrote:Hi,

Thanks very much to all of you..
Bill, Upon reading your answer I thought you would end by saying a chair does NOT have intrinsic value but you state the opposite... Could you explain? ...
I doubt it as they were not his words, he just cut-pasted them from Wiki after he searched it for the word "intrinsic".

Re: "... Is there a word to differenciate two objects, one which is 'natural' and the other which has been constructed. i.e wood and chair? ..."

I think it's "Made" as in 'man made' and 'made in China'.

Re: Wood and Chair question

Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2014 11:56 am
by Ginkgo
Petals wrote:Hi,

Thanks very much to all of you..
Bill, Upon reading your answer I thought you would end by saying a chair does NOT have intrinsic value but you state the opposite... Could you explain?

In fact, to clarify, what I would really like to convery is this. ( I am imagining the chair is a wooden chair, by the way). 'Wood' and 'chair' are both words. However one does exist per se (wood) while the other does not (chair, in the sense of natural existence).

So, I am very interested in the dichotomy of language, really. Both are words, yet one exists and the other does not. I.e words can convery reality and unreality in equal measure. And thus, words fail to differentiate real existence from constructed existence.

So, my question bridges existence with language and a almost deception that may exist. Any theories linking to this?? :)

I think I can see what you are getting in relation to language.

It was popular within the philosophy of language to say that language is useful in referring to the external world. Perhaps we can say there existed the belief in a type of one to one correspondence between language and the world. Another way of saying this would the claim that there exists a casual connection between the words we use and the type of things that exist. This is know as referencing theory.

Re: Wood and Chair question

Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2014 4:11 pm
by Bill Wiltrack
.



Yeah... I think I did Wiki the term intrinsic.

Um, I think that is the term that you may be looking at to better understand your proposition.





.

Re: Wood and Chair question

Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:54 pm
by randallbenak
Bill Wiltrack wrote:.



I think the word you are looking for is intrinsic.



Intrinsic value is an ethical and philosophic property. It is the ethical or philosophic value that an object has "in itself" or "for its own sake", as an intrinsic property. An object with intrinsic value may be regarded as an end or (in Kantian terminology) end-in-itself.

It is contrasted with instrumental value (or extrinsic value), the value of which depends on how much it generates intrinsic value. For an eudaemonist, happiness has intrinsic value, while having a family may not have intrinsic value, yet be instrumental, since it generates happiness. Intrinsic value is a term employed in axiology, the study of quality or value.


...so, a chair, does have intrinsic value.


.
i think you are right

of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent

(anatomy) situated within or peculiar to a part: intrinsic muscles

Re: Wood and Chair question

Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 7:10 pm
by Arising_uk
Petals wrote:Hi,
...

So, I am very interested in the dichotomy of language, really. Both are words, yet one exists and the other does not. I.e words can convery reality and unreality in equal measure. And thus, words fail to differentiate real existence from constructed existence. ...
What do the words "real" and "constructed" refer to then? That is, if what you say is true how are you saying what you say?

Re: Wood and Chair question

Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 7:26 pm
by Wyman
Sounds like the block of marble with a statue buried in it waiting for the sculptor to bring the FORM out of the SUBSTANCE. Which would be Gingko's hint towards Aristotle. Warning: that's a long road to hoe.

Re: Wood and Chair question

Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 4:33 pm
by cladking
I'd call it language confusion and perspective imparted by language. A wooden chair would simply be a specific term relative "lumber" or "wood" which are more general terms. We tend to confuse things further by referring to the chair as man-made and then we'd call a beaver dam "natural".

It is much simpler to just get rid of the concept of "man-made" altogether. Man is natural and an animal so everything he makes is as natural as a honeycomb. A "chair" (at least most chairs) are a device made by humans for the purpose of sitting. These can be made by any number of processes and artisans out of countless materials including wood.

Re: Wood and Chair question

Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 5:30 pm
by The Voice of Time
An "object of nature" would suffice I think for the first one. The second would be an "object of humankind".

There's no simple word that I know of, but those two should help you understand the difference a long way.

Re: Wood and Chair question

Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2014 2:07 am
by cladking
The Voice of Time wrote:An "object of nature" would suffice I think for the first one. The second would be an "object of humankind".

There's no simple word that I know of, but those two should help you understand the difference a long way.

Wouldn't this revert back to a beaver dam being simply "wood" and "natural"?

Re: Wood and Chair question

Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2014 10:03 am
by Ginkgo
cladking wrote:
The Voice of Time wrote:An "object of nature" would suffice I think for the first one. The second would be an "object of humankind".

There's no simple word that I know of, but those two should help you understand the difference a long way.

Wouldn't this revert back to a beaver dam being simply "wood" and "natural"?
As soon as a beaver builds a computer I'll be happy to drop the distinction