← but some part is blaring and perfect →



i'm ian, i've got music in my pores—but i love reading, tinkering, and experimenting pretty holistically: a mile across, but only a few inches deep in places. you probably have got an adequate intuition for that if you're here



@ıI||||||Iı#ıI||||||Iı@ıI||||||Iı#ıI||||||Iı@ıI||||||Iı



(abridged) list of current projects:

🎼final revisions, electronica LP
🀄svg timeline, china's dynastic history
mixed media video essay, chess history


#ıI||||||Iı@ıI||||||Iı#ıI||||||Iı@ıI||||||Iı#ıI||||||Iı@



learning chinese⇒ 🀄 ⇒@cidian
〃to be a person⇒ 🦒 ⇒@aquamanile


✨X≡¤≈∶∓⹀)⁄⁏;-ɐ±‥≁ɚ×—≡¤≈∶⹀⁏|∣-♯‥≁ɚ×✨



🧿🏡🧿https://ianremsen.nand.sh
🎶🎼🎛https://audio.com/ia.remsen
🔡🗨🔡@​iar:matrix.org
🐘⚗🐘@ian@​cathode.church
🐘🎹🐘@ian@​musicians.today


last.fm listening



Quidam
@Quidam

I'm making this chost for two reasons: 1) I want to start making more post related to philosophy and 2) I want to practice adding the right description to pictures.


The long text above says: “I remembered once, in Japan, having been to see the Gold Pavilion Temple in Kyoto and being mildly surprised at quite how well it had weathered the passage of time since it was first built in the fourteenth century. I was told it hadn’t weathered well at all, and had in fact been burnt to the ground twice in this century. “So it isn’t the original building?” I had asked my Japanese guide. “But yes, of course it is,” he insisted, rather surprised at my question. “But it’s burnt down?” “Yes.” “Twice.” “Many times.” “And rebuilt.” “Of course. It is an important and historic building.” “With completely new materials.” “But of course. It was burnt down.” “So how can it be the same building?” “It is always the same building.” I had to admit to myself that this was in fact a perfectly rational point of view, it merely started from an unexpected premise. The idea of the building, the intention of it, its design, are all immutable and are the essence of the building. The intention of the original builders is what survives. The wood of which the design is constructed decays and is replaced when necessary. To be overly concerned with the original materials, which are merely sentimental souvenirs of the past, is to fail to see the living building itself.” ― Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @Quidam's post:

surprised at quite how well it had weathered the passage of time since it was first built in the fourteenth century. I was told it hadn’t weathered well at all

To be the jerk here, this points out that it isn't a philosophy question at all, it's a trick. The guide was perfectly capable of understanding the concept of "the building has weathered" (or, in this case, not). So they understood the idea of the building as a physical object that can be damaged. To then pretend that actually it's the Idea of a Building that survived since the 14th century is a bait and switch.

Hylomorphism argues that the form of an object is a property that is immanent to the matter making the object. This is distinct from a platonist explanation, where the form is the idea of the object. Since the form is "within" the matter, it make sense to speak of it and of the matter itself. That being said, I am far from being the most knowledgable person on Aristotle, I just know of his philosophy second hand, so my explanation might be flawed.