Jerry quoted
>>> Many philosophers hold that the essence of water is
>>> its real essence; the essence of water is H2O. So
>>> the stuff in my glass has an essential property, a
>>> property without which it would not be the stuff that
>>> it is; if the stuff in my glass did not have the
>>> property of being H2O, then it would not be water.
>> That example doesn't seem to work! I can just imagine you going
>> off to planet Y in a very distant galaxy, crashlanding, swimming
>> across a large river, drinking the water, using it to water your
>> plants, and then having the first officer come yelling to you,
>> "Chief! This stuff isn't H20!". You'd then probably conclude
>> that not all water in the universe has the same chemical
>> composition.
> I dont follow this, what do you mean the officer runs over and says its not
> H2O? If its a compound similar to water and acts in the same way, it still
> is what it is. What else could it be? If its compound X, then its molecular
> structure might be different. My use of it doesnt change its identity or the
> water's.
It had been stated that an essential property of water
is that its chemical composition is H2O. But I think
that it is possible that in some places water may not
have that property. (People on the planet that I spoke
of would *not* bother to coin a new term if the new stuff
looked and acted like H2O for all daily life purposes.)
Hence, "having chemical composition H2O" is not an essential
property of water.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:21 MDT