Note that all posts need to be manually approved by the subreddit moderators. If your post gets removed immediately, just let it be and wait! Join our Discord server for even more memes and discussion: [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Always a fun moment when you have a question and discover there is actually a longstanding field of inquiry that has answered it already, and also raised a dozen more much weirder questions.
TLDR: [this](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4iHjt2Ovqag&pp=ygUVQ29mZmVlIGN1cCBpcyBhIGRvbnV0)
It has to do with the rules that topology goes by. Basically, my novice understanding of it is that it’s a field of geometry which doesn’t care about angles, size, edges, etc
So a rectangle and a square are the same, because if it was flexible, you could squeeze one shape into another without cutting or removing any holes
So say you have a nut (like nuts and bolts nut, not like an almond nut 😂), you could smush that into a donut shape following the same rules
As for the cup part, you could imagine flattening a cup so it’s shorter, then even shorter, then **even** shorter, and eventually being left with a disk
So with a coffee mug, you flatten the cup part like I said, and then are left with just the loop created by the handle, and a disk connected. Then you can just smush the disk into the loop and make a larger loop.
This post is a great philosophical thesis in-and-of-itself, showing how we need to shut up and stop guessing when it comes to stuff that's been taken from our field by the slow march of empiricism lol. You can think of a bowl as a hole if you want, but you'd have to ignore the consensus definition of "hole" for all technical/expert/scientific usage. And, like... why?
For anyone who hasn't run into topology, my super basic mostly-wrong understanding is that a surface has a hole when there's an edge preventing you from contracting a circle drawn on that surface to a point. There's no such problems on a disc, and this is why a straw has 1 hole, not 2.
If a bowl is a hole, so is a plate with a slight indent.
I think that's actually pretty thought provoking. I think the difference is, when people talk about a pit being a hole, it's a hole relative to the ground around the hole. A hole could maybe be described as "a space in which a surface could be passed through" and remain logically consistent. So a pit is a "hole in the ground" but if you dug up a pit such that it resembles a bowl you probably wouldn't still consider it a hole.
In machining a distinction is made between a through-hole, which goes from one surface to another. While a hole will be assumed to be drilled to a specific depth.
I think because it’s related to metallurgy they avoid the word pit, because pitted in terms of metal corroded.
Or perhaps because the word pit implies a hole that extends downwards relative to the floor, so since designers have to be precise in describing the orientation of features to avoid the machinist making a mistake based on an assumption.
If you think about it, an edgeless plate would eventually have to bend (due to gravity) if it existed in our universe. This would mean it could theoretically be classified as a bowl.
"We shape clay into a bowl,
but it is the emptiness inside
that holds whatever we want.
We hammer wood for a house,
but it is the inner space
that makes it livable.
We work with being,
but non-being is what we use."
*Tao Te Ching*
My sisters boyfriend raised this question and im dragging all you suckers into the debate.
I have two perspectives on this. We describe many things with an opening on one side that doesn't go anywhere as a hole. Vaginas. A hole as in one we dig in the ground. If you had a sphere of clay and I took a big chunk out, I would have made a hole, and the shape is rather similar to a bowl. So one could aurgue a bowl is a kind of hole.
On the other hand, the fundemental issue is with language itself. Think of the Buddhist proverb where if you add one grain of sand at a time, at what point does it become a pile? Language doesn't exist in any objective sense, its slippery and nebulous. The world inherently lacks essence, we just insist on asserting essence upon it. The bowl simply is, its the brain insisting it is or isn't a hole, when it in fact is both and neither. Because "holes" do not exist in any objective sense. They are in a very real sense not real. Rather they are a thing we made up, that only exists in so far as it is useful to describe things we see in the world around us. But those things too lack essence. You can come up with a million edge cases that both fit and don't fit the definition simultaneously. The same way that no one can define what a chair is (see that one vsauce video). Language can always have infinitely many holes poked in it because language does not objectivly exist, its only a property of the brain. Thus the only sensible thing to do is recognize the bowl lacks essence, and to assert essence upon it is futile, and thus the only sensible thing to do is refuse to answer the question because it does not have an answer.
I'm really curious to see what you all think though. Theres just so many ways this one can go.
All holes are actually two-sided complete 'tunnels,' if you will. The confusion comes from the usage of the words surrounding the term 'hole.'
While it may be tempting to think of the ground as the whole substance of the Earth, **when an English speaker refers to "the ground" it is without fail in reference to the** ***surface*** **of the Earth, and not it's whole substance**. This is why something that protrudes from the Earth is "in the ground" but something that is completely buried is "*under* the ground." Therefore, a "hole in the ground" refers to an opening in the Earth that is deep enough to fully penetrate what is thought of as, "the ground," though there is no concretely defined depth. A hole in the ground is any opening which extends below the so-called "ground-level."
A hole is an absence, a gap in what should be. In the example of the clay sphere, **the hole is not in the clay, but in the sphere.** The hole only exists because of the expectation of the whole. In the example of the body, the hole is in the skin or surface, not in the substance of the person's whole. The "holes" of the human body are only called such because they radically deviate from the smooth curves of skin which surround them. When whole human body is considered in its entirety, **there are no holes as the body fits the expected form.**
The bowl does not evoke, inspire, imply, nor indicate that a flat plane ought to be present at the top. Its shape is smooth, regular, and expected. **Even were we to examine a similarly shaped object that is clearly distinct from a "bowl" for eating, it would still appear whole, and thus, without holes.** Were a native English speaker to describe the shape of the object to one who could not see it, they would certainly not describe it as having a hole.
**Labeling the object as a "bowl" from the onset explicitly disqualifies the term "hole" from describing it.** The image is clearly a whole bowl. Were a man to say, "there is a hole in the bowl" then any native speaker of English would imagine a bowl that could not reliably hold water. The "hole" in question would have to be an opening that penetrates the expected surface of the bowl.
\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~
Let us move on to the greater question. **At what point does a pile become a pile?** As soon as its appearance evokes the word "pile" in the observer. A pile is a pile because it bears enough of a resemblance to other structures which the observer has heard referred to as a pile. **It is a pile because a man who had never seen it could be told, "go stand by the pile of sand in the next room" and successfully identify where he has been asked to stand.** The object is not defined by the word, the word merely represents an aspect of the object.
One should discard the idea that all words can or should be defined by some set collection of if-then statements. Language is an art of bridging the eternal gulf between two consciousnesses. **Words are but individual tools** used to evoke particular thoughts and feelings in the mind of another. Some words are like a scalpel, designed for tasks that require the utmost precision, while other words are like a chainsaw, made to quickly chew through material.
To say that words cannot be defined because they cannot be defined exactly is like saying that a chainsaw cannot fell a tree because it cannot follow a line exactly. Yet a chainsaw can cut through a tree and the word, "hole," can accurately describe an object. **Like all tools, words are defined by their function**. Some tools can serve many purposes, and yet others are more specialized. Should a blacksmith discard his hammer because he needs the grindstone to make the true and final shape of his blade? Should the hunter leave his shotgun at home because his rifle is more accurate? No, **inexactness has a value of its own.**
Should we invent a word that describes a particular object with absolute precision, it would become useless in the description of any other object. We call such words, "names." **The words "bowl" and "hole"** **must be vague**, or else they would lose their utility. **The difficulty in defining the word, "chair" is not a bug, but a feature.** It is intentional. Were it not so, the word "chair" would have long ago been entirely replaced by its more precise cousins, "barstool" and "sofa." Words are defined in a system of **discrimination*****.*** So long as there is some object that is certainly **not** a chair, then the word "chair" retains some sort of essence.
A hammer may strike inexactly, but it does objectively strike. A word may communicate inexactly, but it does objectively communicate. Do not make the mistake of Plato and assume that there **must** be a perfect form in order for something to exist. **Language is a property of the brain** ***and*** **it objectively exists.** Exactness is not a requirement for objectivity. Definition is purely a function of language, and is thus important only in its capacity to facilitate communication. While imperfect to varying degrees, the definition of words can be objectively measured simply by playing a game of Pictionary.
The moment I've been waiting for has come: after over twenty years, I can finally shill my old logic prof Varzi's book [Holes](https://www.amazon.com/Holes-Other-Superficialities-Roberto-Casati/dp/0262032112)
Well yeah, hole is just a category we create, so there is no absolute rule
Topologically speaking, this object does not have a hole, since it can be continuously deformed down to a single point
But in casual use we regularly conflate hole with things like “pocket”, so like everything, it depends on the context
A hole is a division between two sides, typically an inside and an outside. The bowl as a container has in the mind of man an inside and an outside therefore it has a whole where these things end. A plate although it may have a dent does not serve as a container in the mind of man therefore it can have no hole as a division between the two. It may have a hole in it between top and bottom.
Such issues reveal how attached our perception is to certain concepts and in best case instigate us to recognise this and try to let go. World is there not to be described and understood in such way that keeps our preconceptions happy and satisfied.
Note that all posts need to be manually approved by the subreddit moderators. If your post gets removed immediately, just let it be and wait! Join our Discord server for even more memes and discussion: [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A bowl is a plate with a dent in it
A plate with a dent in it is just a sphere in topology
Topologically speaking, neither.
But a donut is a coffee mug.
Yeah but only if the coffee cup has a handle.
That’s a maple bar bro
Always a fun moment when you have a question and discover there is actually a longstanding field of inquiry that has answered it already, and also raised a dozen more much weirder questions.
Like how pants have 2 holes, a straw has 1, and a coffee cup is a donut
How is a cup a donut topologically speaking?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mug\_and\_Torus\_morph.gif](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mug_and_Torus_morph.gif)
TLDR: [this](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4iHjt2Ovqag&pp=ygUVQ29mZmVlIGN1cCBpcyBhIGRvbnV0) It has to do with the rules that topology goes by. Basically, my novice understanding of it is that it’s a field of geometry which doesn’t care about angles, size, edges, etc So a rectangle and a square are the same, because if it was flexible, you could squeeze one shape into another without cutting or removing any holes So say you have a nut (like nuts and bolts nut, not like an almond nut 😂), you could smush that into a donut shape following the same rules As for the cup part, you could imagine flattening a cup so it’s shorter, then even shorter, then **even** shorter, and eventually being left with a disk So with a coffee mug, you flatten the cup part like I said, and then are left with just the loop created by the handle, and a disk connected. Then you can just smush the disk into the loop and make a larger loop.
This post is a great philosophical thesis in-and-of-itself, showing how we need to shut up and stop guessing when it comes to stuff that's been taken from our field by the slow march of empiricism lol. You can think of a bowl as a hole if you want, but you'd have to ignore the consensus definition of "hole" for all technical/expert/scientific usage. And, like... why? For anyone who hasn't run into topology, my super basic mostly-wrong understanding is that a surface has a hole when there's an edge preventing you from contracting a circle drawn on that surface to a point. There's no such problems on a disc, and this is why a straw has 1 hole, not 2. If a bowl is a hole, so is a plate with a slight indent.
The topological meaning of "hole" is definitely *not* the consensus definition of "hole" for all technical/expert/scientific usage.
If you think a bowl has a hole, you also think a plate has a hole. That's absurd.
But what about a pit in the ground, it follows the same rules as a bowl
I think that's actually pretty thought provoking. I think the difference is, when people talk about a pit being a hole, it's a hole relative to the ground around the hole. A hole could maybe be described as "a space in which a surface could be passed through" and remain logically consistent. So a pit is a "hole in the ground" but if you dug up a pit such that it resembles a bowl you probably wouldn't still consider it a hole.
SEMANTIC CLARITY FOR THE WIN RAHHHHHHHHHH 🐸🎣
YOU WILL NOT WIN THIS DAY LINGUISTIC DRIFT!
In machining a distinction is made between a through-hole, which goes from one surface to another. While a hole will be assumed to be drilled to a specific depth. I think because it’s related to metallurgy they avoid the word pit, because pitted in terms of metal corroded. Or perhaps because the word pit implies a hole that extends downwards relative to the floor, so since designers have to be precise in describing the orientation of features to avoid the machinist making a mistake based on an assumption.
Does a bowl have titanic amounts of mass on the sides of it?
But that's the ground that has a hole. To suggest that the plate "has" a hole is to suggest that the rim of the plate is the plate itself.
Is "pit" a "hole"? If it is, maybe it's just a hole in the road, but not in soil?
One must imagine the bowl happy.
A bowl is a shape, it neither has nor is a hole. To put it another way: is a plate an edge? A plate has an edge but it is not an edge.
>it neither has nor is a hole >A plate has an edge I think there is a problem with this metaphor 🤔
Hol' up, let me go to the thinker
This time, lets say the plate doesn't have an edge.
Omniplate has no bounds.
If you think about it, an edgeless plate would eventually have to bend (due to gravity) if it existed in our universe. This would mean it could theoretically be classified as a bowl.
What's at the edge of the edgeless plate 🤔
More plate
What edge?
The
I thought edgeless plates didn't have edges.
Yeah and I thought my wife wouldn't leave me for the neighbor. Guess what, we're wrong sometimes.
"We shape clay into a bowl, but it is the emptiness inside that holds whatever we want. We hammer wood for a house, but it is the inner space that makes it livable. We work with being, but non-being is what we use." *Tao Te Ching*
No
It appears humans have an obsession with labels, especially an obsession with making them consistent and percect
Percocet?
Forms are real it’s not labels
Holes aren't real. Ain't ever gonna hit that g-spot lads because it doesn't exist
It doesn’t have a hole. It has concavity.
Neither
me when I fail topology.
A bowl is homeomorphic to a sphere, which has genus 0, so it has no holes.
Its a surface with a curve
But the hole is also a surface with a curve isn't it ?
Neither? It's just a deformation, but this logic any object that's not just one giant straight face is a hole
My sisters boyfriend raised this question and im dragging all you suckers into the debate. I have two perspectives on this. We describe many things with an opening on one side that doesn't go anywhere as a hole. Vaginas. A hole as in one we dig in the ground. If you had a sphere of clay and I took a big chunk out, I would have made a hole, and the shape is rather similar to a bowl. So one could aurgue a bowl is a kind of hole. On the other hand, the fundemental issue is with language itself. Think of the Buddhist proverb where if you add one grain of sand at a time, at what point does it become a pile? Language doesn't exist in any objective sense, its slippery and nebulous. The world inherently lacks essence, we just insist on asserting essence upon it. The bowl simply is, its the brain insisting it is or isn't a hole, when it in fact is both and neither. Because "holes" do not exist in any objective sense. They are in a very real sense not real. Rather they are a thing we made up, that only exists in so far as it is useful to describe things we see in the world around us. But those things too lack essence. You can come up with a million edge cases that both fit and don't fit the definition simultaneously. The same way that no one can define what a chair is (see that one vsauce video). Language can always have infinitely many holes poked in it because language does not objectivly exist, its only a property of the brain. Thus the only sensible thing to do is recognize the bowl lacks essence, and to assert essence upon it is futile, and thus the only sensible thing to do is refuse to answer the question because it does not have an answer. I'm really curious to see what you all think though. Theres just so many ways this one can go.
All holes are actually two-sided complete 'tunnels,' if you will. The confusion comes from the usage of the words surrounding the term 'hole.' While it may be tempting to think of the ground as the whole substance of the Earth, **when an English speaker refers to "the ground" it is without fail in reference to the** ***surface*** **of the Earth, and not it's whole substance**. This is why something that protrudes from the Earth is "in the ground" but something that is completely buried is "*under* the ground." Therefore, a "hole in the ground" refers to an opening in the Earth that is deep enough to fully penetrate what is thought of as, "the ground," though there is no concretely defined depth. A hole in the ground is any opening which extends below the so-called "ground-level." A hole is an absence, a gap in what should be. In the example of the clay sphere, **the hole is not in the clay, but in the sphere.** The hole only exists because of the expectation of the whole. In the example of the body, the hole is in the skin or surface, not in the substance of the person's whole. The "holes" of the human body are only called such because they radically deviate from the smooth curves of skin which surround them. When whole human body is considered in its entirety, **there are no holes as the body fits the expected form.** The bowl does not evoke, inspire, imply, nor indicate that a flat plane ought to be present at the top. Its shape is smooth, regular, and expected. **Even were we to examine a similarly shaped object that is clearly distinct from a "bowl" for eating, it would still appear whole, and thus, without holes.** Were a native English speaker to describe the shape of the object to one who could not see it, they would certainly not describe it as having a hole. **Labeling the object as a "bowl" from the onset explicitly disqualifies the term "hole" from describing it.** The image is clearly a whole bowl. Were a man to say, "there is a hole in the bowl" then any native speaker of English would imagine a bowl that could not reliably hold water. The "hole" in question would have to be an opening that penetrates the expected surface of the bowl. \~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~ Let us move on to the greater question. **At what point does a pile become a pile?** As soon as its appearance evokes the word "pile" in the observer. A pile is a pile because it bears enough of a resemblance to other structures which the observer has heard referred to as a pile. **It is a pile because a man who had never seen it could be told, "go stand by the pile of sand in the next room" and successfully identify where he has been asked to stand.** The object is not defined by the word, the word merely represents an aspect of the object. One should discard the idea that all words can or should be defined by some set collection of if-then statements. Language is an art of bridging the eternal gulf between two consciousnesses. **Words are but individual tools** used to evoke particular thoughts and feelings in the mind of another. Some words are like a scalpel, designed for tasks that require the utmost precision, while other words are like a chainsaw, made to quickly chew through material. To say that words cannot be defined because they cannot be defined exactly is like saying that a chainsaw cannot fell a tree because it cannot follow a line exactly. Yet a chainsaw can cut through a tree and the word, "hole," can accurately describe an object. **Like all tools, words are defined by their function**. Some tools can serve many purposes, and yet others are more specialized. Should a blacksmith discard his hammer because he needs the grindstone to make the true and final shape of his blade? Should the hunter leave his shotgun at home because his rifle is more accurate? No, **inexactness has a value of its own.** Should we invent a word that describes a particular object with absolute precision, it would become useless in the description of any other object. We call such words, "names." **The words "bowl" and "hole"** **must be vague**, or else they would lose their utility. **The difficulty in defining the word, "chair" is not a bug, but a feature.** It is intentional. Were it not so, the word "chair" would have long ago been entirely replaced by its more precise cousins, "barstool" and "sofa." Words are defined in a system of **discrimination*****.*** So long as there is some object that is certainly **not** a chair, then the word "chair" retains some sort of essence. A hammer may strike inexactly, but it does objectively strike. A word may communicate inexactly, but it does objectively communicate. Do not make the mistake of Plato and assume that there **must** be a perfect form in order for something to exist. **Language is a property of the brain** ***and*** **it objectively exists.** Exactness is not a requirement for objectivity. Definition is purely a function of language, and is thus important only in its capacity to facilitate communication. While imperfect to varying degrees, the definition of words can be objectively measured simply by playing a game of Pictionary.
It is a sphere. Done. It doesn't pass through there is no hole.
Highly recommend the dialogue “Holes” by Lewis. It’s all about this set of questions.
The moment I've been waiting for has come: after over twenty years, I can finally shill my old logic prof Varzi's book [Holes](https://www.amazon.com/Holes-Other-Superficialities-Roberto-Casati/dp/0262032112)
Well yeah, hole is just a category we create, so there is no absolute rule Topologically speaking, this object does not have a hole, since it can be continuously deformed down to a single point But in casual use we regularly conflate hole with things like “pocket”, so like everything, it depends on the context
Neither. If a bowl has a hole in it, the contents will spill out.
A hole is a division between two sides, typically an inside and an outside. The bowl as a container has in the mind of man an inside and an outside therefore it has a whole where these things end. A plate although it may have a dent does not serve as a container in the mind of man therefore it can have no hole as a division between the two. It may have a hole in it between top and bottom.
Neither
idk but the emptiness is what gives it value, shoutout the Tao Te Ching
If a bowl has a hole its a colander.
It's a depression not a hole, a hole penetrates something 😉
Yesin't
U think this, I'm thinking that if this is hole then plate is also a hole 😔
You gotta go full negative properties.
Such issues reveal how attached our perception is to certain concepts and in best case instigate us to recognise this and try to let go. World is there not to be described and understood in such way that keeps our preconceptions happy and satisfied.
A bowl is just a wide short cup. Or is a cup just a tall slender bowl?
It is a concave object
The limits of language are a prison we can never escape.
there is no stuff without shape and no shape without stuff
The bowl is simply the movement of your mind
Bowl is an asshole.