Comments by "Шум Шумов" (@YaShoom) on "IWrocker"
channel.
-
7
-
3
-
@DGHeina It depends on the philosophical view.
But if something is a whole, then its individual parts are not separated, otherwise they would not constitute a whole.
For example, a car consists of doors, a motor, and wheels, but these are not separate parts. They may be physically separate, but they are not separate at the moment of the unity of the mechanism. And to say that a car consists of many separated parts before their separation is like saying that a freshly baked pizza is actually separate pieces of pizza that are connected because they have not yet been cut.
In general, the problem is in the word "separate" in the context of a whole, instead of "individual?".
There can be no separate in a whole, otherwise it is not a whole.
A whole can consist of elements and become separate after some separating event, but before the moment of separation the whole is a whole, although a composite.
To say that the parts of a whole are separate, while they are not separate, is strange. It makes sense to talk about a separate if the whole has ceased to exist.
Let's imagine that there is a country A and it consists of parts B and C. Someone says that countries B and C are separate, but together.
Then, let's imagine that country A is divided into countries B and C. And the person will say "Countries B and C are separate, but now they are separate."
Doesn't this seem incomprehensible?
Thnx.
1
-
1
-
@DGHeina A separate country is not the same as a separate part. Separate parts are not equivalent to separate countries, since parts automatically imply a whole, but countries automatically imply independence.
Legally, a country is something that is officially in an independent position, that is, a country = sovereignty.
Saying "A separate country" = saying "This is a member state of the UN".
A country can consist of entities, but it cannot consist of countries. A union can consist of countries, like the Eurasian Union or NATO, but these countries must be sovereign.
The objective fact is that countries consist of parts (subjects).
Therefore, a part of a whole can be conditionally "separate", but this part is not sovereign. But there cannot be a separate country that is not sovereign. If you say "A separate country", then this automatically means "The UN interacts with it as a separate entity".
Probably, I was confused by the word "country", and not "separate".
And if we also say "Separate" here, then this finally begins to emphasize the error from the point of view of formality (although socially, of course, this is what was meant - the desire for equality).
1