is a key still a key, if theres nothing to unlock?

[Rowan]

I remember discussing this question in my philosophy class. The argument was "is a key still a key if theres nothing to unlock" first we established that if it is in fact a key, then its sole purpose is to be used to unlock perhaps a door or locket. If neither of those objects existed or if either lock ceased to exist, then the key would have no purpose, therfor would no longer be a key since it had nothing to unlock. I argued this and said that cannot be possible for a purpose to define an object. The key itself would still be a key, because it once had the ability to unlock said locks. If the key was designed to unlock nothing, then it would not be a key, but it is in fact established, that it is already a key. So all thats left in my argument is that the locks that ceased to exist do not change the fact that the key is still a key, for it once was able to unlock a lock.

What do you think. Perhaps you coud extend the theory on this?

[Order]

When my car runs out of gas, it is still a car.
An object is named based on its intended function, not how well it performs. Thats what adjectives are for.
A key without a corresponding lock is a -shitty- key and not a mind-bending new invention.

Philosophy can always be defeated by physics. Thats why its a liberal art.

Edit::
You're welcome. Now you can finish your homework.

Edit 2::
Reminds me of a joke.
A key that opens many locks is called a master key. A lock which is opened by many keys is called a shitty lock.

[Heartless Angel]

"Key - A small metal instrument specially cut to fit into a lock and move its bolt."

If it was specifically cut for the purpose of opening a lock, then whether the lock still exists or not, it is a key. If it' s just a piece of metal with a random shape corresponding to no lock cut into it for no reason whatsoever and there never was a lock, then it would not be a key. It would resemble a key, but it would not be a key. Purpose may not be able to define something, but intended purpose can.

[Pete]

A key is also a 2x2ft trench when benching and then filling soil in sloped areas! Hooray for soil engineering!

But really, a key will still be a key regardless of if it has a corresponding lock. Although, in theory, if there were no locks ever, in the history in time, there would be no key needed to unlock said locks, and so, keys would not exist.

Now, if a lock didn't exist, but keys did, they the key would be nothing more than junk. Surely we would still call it a key, because it fits the conception of they key that we've always had.

Even if someone makes a key, specifically not to fit any single lock, it would still be a key because it is in the same design, shape and appearance of keys that do open locks. Is a book a book, even if it is bound, with pages and has no words?

With that same logic, is a battering ram a key because it is used to open doors and "unlock" them as well?

[Heartless Angel]

"1. a written or printed work of fiction or nonfiction, usually on sheets of paper fastened or bound together within covers.

2. a number of sheets of blank or ruled paper bound together for writing, recording business transactions, etc."

So yes, a book can still be a book without writing. It can not be a novel. Book is defined by a form, novel is defined by an intended purpose. Key is also defined by intended purpose, not form. A random piece of metal with weird shapes cut into it is not a key unless it was made to open a lock.

"Key - A small metal instrument specially cut to fit into a lock and move its bolt."

Unless it was a very tiny battering ram specifically cut to be rammed into the keyhole to open the lock, no.

[SOLDIER #819]

But let's say 5000 years into the future everyone had ceased using keys long ago and had forgotten its "intended purpose". With no one able to say that it had once been used to open locks, can it really be called anything more than a hunk of junk? They may eventually discover its use later, but for a certain period of time it was definitely nothing more than scrap metal.

Or, what if cellphones was sent 5000+ years into the past? There is no way that they could be used for calls, or that they would one day be used for them, but the beeps make for a very good musical instrument. Without anyone to tell them what it is for, how is it possible from their POV to say that it is a device used for communication, particularly if we or our POV don't exist? It's impossible.

In the same way values differ from person to person, so can the definition of a given item. Knowledge and culture can change meanings.

We're so deep lol

[Heartless Angel]

But let's say 5000 years into the future everyone had ceased using keys long ago and had forgotten its "intended purpose". With no one able to say that it had once been used to open locks, can it really be called anything more than a hunk of junk? They may eventually discover its use later, but for a certain period of time it was definitely nothing more than scrap metal.

Or, what if cellphones was sent 5000+ years into the past? There is no way that they could be used for calls, or that they would one day be used for them, but the beeps make for a very good musical instrument. Without anyone to tell them what it is for, how is it possible from their POV to say that it is a device used for communication, particularly if we or our POV don't exist? It's impossible.

In the same way values differ from person to person, so can the definition of a given item. Knowledge and culture can change meanings.

We're so deep lol

Not really. It would still be a key. Nobody in that time would KNOW it's a key, similarly nobody 5000 years in the past would know a phone was a phone. That wouldn't make it any less of a phone. It's intended use is the same whether anyone is aware of that intention/use or not. Whether it actually gets used the way it's intended is irrelevant.

[Unknown Entity]

I wouldn't say it was a key. I could take a piece of wood and carve it into what appears to be a key, but it wouldn't have a function. It'll just look like a key. You could describe it as looking like a key by calling it one, but it has no function other than decoration. I own a pendant of a key which doesn't fit anything for example. It's not a key, just resembles one.

A car with no gas is, quite rightly, still a car. A book is still a book without any text. But those examples make **** all in sense in this discussion. Neither a car or gas would make an effective key or lock, and the text in a book isn't a key. A better example would be is a bottle opener still a bottle opener if bottles didn't exist. Answer: of course not. It would be a piece of metal with a semi-circle cut out of it.

Also, a key could be anything. Come on, we're all gamers! A key could be a star-shaped metal cut-out designed to twist a star-shaped alcove. But if it has no purpose, then why can't it just be a star-shaped metal cut-out object for decoration? Just because it resembles something, it doesn't make it the same object.

[SOLDIER #819]

Not really. It would still be a key. Nobody in that time would KNOW it's a key, similarly nobody 5000 years in the past would know a phone was a phone. That wouldn't make it any less of a phone. It's intended use is the same whether anyone is aware of that intention/use or not. Whether it actually gets used the way it's intended is irrelevant.

Yes really. REALLY REALLY REALLY.

If there is no memory to substantiate the object's original purpose, then how can it be possibly thought of as a phone? From your POV, yes, it's a phone; you have memories of them at this present time. But at that point, you don't even exist.

Signal towers do not exist at this point, either. There is no way to have these things function as they were "originally intended". So even if you were dropped back into existence, say, some 2500 years into the past, when they are using magic to duplicate phones en masse down to the last atom and using them as musical instruments, what are you going to tell them? "The instruments you use are actually devices for communication through the air, but I can't show you how they function now. Wait 2500 years, and then maybe you'll be cool enough to understand." Chances are you'll come to think yourself insane before the majority of society believe you. There isn't some all-knowing voice to tell you you're right, either.

Then of course there's the fact that they've used the device as an instrument for over 2000 years, while we've used it as a cellphone for no more than a century. Is one use any more valid than the other? It makes a better instrument, given their circumstances, so, can you really protest?

If I use a stick to open 1000 locks, and have a key that opens no lock, which is more of a key, going by its traits alone?

If aliens came down from the sky and told you that humans were manufactured in a lab so that they had something to hold up and adjust their TV antennae for optimum image quality, would it REALLY matter? Would the you, who has never held up an antenna for a galactic overlord in his life, really subscribe to that? Doesn't the definition of what you are in the present override whatever the past intentions were?

I just don't think intentions and definitions can be etched permanently into the sky. They change with time. Plato can go shove it.

[Heartless Angel]

Yes really. REALLY REALLY REALLY.

If there is no memory to substantiate the object's original purpose, then how can it be possibly thought of as a phone? From your POV, yes, it's a phone; you have memories of them at this present time. But at that point, you don't even exist.

Again, "Key - A small metal instrument specially cut to fit into a lock and move its bolt." It becomes a key at the instant of its creation because of what it is intended for. The intention defines the object, not how it is being used. I use my keys to open envelopes, it's still a key, not a letter opener.

Signal towers do not exist at this point, either. There is no way to have these things function as they were "originally intended". So even if you were dropped back into existence, say, some 2500 years into the past, when they are using magic to duplicate phones en masse down to the last atom and using them as musical instruments, what are you going to tell them? "The instruments you use are actually devices for communication through the air, but I can't show you how they function now. Wait 2500 years, and then maybe you'll be cool enough to understand." Chances are you'll come to think yourself insane before the majority of society believe you. There isn't some all-knowing voice to tell you you're right, either.

Then of course there's the fact that they've used the device as an instrument for over 2000 years, while we've used it as a cellphone for no more than a century. Is one use any more valid than the other? It makes a better instrument, given their circumstances, so, can you really protest?

The phone became a phone at the instant of its creation because of how it was created and what it was intended for. It is the intended function that defines an object, not what it's actually being used for. The intention of the creator at the instant of creation never varies, the current situation of the object changes nothing. That doesn't mean it couldn't be USED as an instrument, just as I can use my keys to open envelopes when I'm too lazy to find a knife, but if that is not what the creator intended it for, by definition it is not an instrument, nor my key a letter opener.

If I use a stick to open 1000 locks, and have a key that opens no lock, which is more of a key, going by its traits alone?

If there is a lock that corresponds to the key, the key. If not, neither. Once again, "Key - A small metal instrument specially cut to fit into a lock and move its bolt." The intention is a part of the definition, if the intention is not there, it doesn't matter if it can be used as one or not, it's not a key.

If aliens came down from the sky and told you that humans were manufactured in a lab so that they had something to hold up and adjust their TV antennae for optimum image quality, would it REALLY matter? Would the you, who has never held up an antenna for a galactic overlord in his life, really subscribe to that? Doesn't the definition of what you are in the present override whatever the past intentions were?

No. If I was created for the express purpose of holding an antenna, I am an antenna holder. I'm an antenna holder being used incorrectly, but an antenna holder nonetheless. People not using an object correctly does not magically change it into something else. My key is a key no matter how many envelopes I open with it. When I get rid of that car, if i keep the key and continue opening envelopes with it, it's STILL a key. It will always be a key. What I use the key for is entirely irrelevant.

I just don't think intentions and definitions can be etched permanently into the sky. They change with time. Plato can go shove it.

Intentions can absolutely. What the maker intended to do with the key he created on April 4, 2012, at 1:44 PM is the same 5 minutes from now as it will be tomorrow, as it will be next year, and as it will be at the end of time. The past is set in stone. Intention is therefore also set in stone, as it does not move forward in time. In the case of a word whose definition is derived from that intention, it is also set in stone.

[Order]

Heartless,
Thank you for explaining all that.
I cant imagine myself going to the trouble.

Why would anyone think posing multiple situations, which are all disproven by a single logic already posed to them, could be effective?

Ill tell you why. Because your ideas and morals are all cercumstantial.
Stop being one of those people.
What heartless just displayed is how the correct answer is the one possesing both a proof and a logic which are independent of isolated incidents.

The questions and hypotheticals posed to heartless were all consistantly cercumstantial and lacked any sort of definate stance on the topic.

It is not a yes or no question reguarding the name of the object. It is a question of if you can think up and support a reason.


Philosophy is not a series mindblowing questions,
It is a series of cercumstantial ideas which you may either play along with or use your own brain on.


A friend mentioned recently that a philosophy professor posed this,
"If a man can marry a man, why cant a father marry a son?"

Apparently, this friend's mind was blown.
I pointed out that homosexuality is very different from incest and they should not be treated the same.She asked me how I can just disreguard the whole topic.
I told her cercumstance and slippery slopes do not make a valid arguement. The format of the question is intentionally tailored.

At that point, she had aleady decided to ignore my point. First because my mind was not blown and second because she knows I am conservative and crams me into the category that means I cram everything into categories of black and white.
Fing hippies...

[SOLDIER #819]

Again, "Key - A small metal instrument specially cut to fit into a lock and move its bolt."

key
2    [kee]
noun, plural keys.
a reef or low island; cay.

key
3    [kee]
noun, plural keys. Slang .
a kilogram of marijuana or a narcotic drug.

4. any of a set of levers operating a typewriter, computer, etc

6. a. Also called: tonality any of the 24 major and minor diatonic scales considered as a corpus of notes upon which a piece of music draws for its tonal framework
b. the main tonal centre in an extended composition: a symphony in the key of F major
c. the tonic of a major or minor scale
d. See tuning key

10. a list of explanations of symbols, codes, etc

~~

Listing definitions doesn't do anything for this debate. But it's fun! There sure are a lot of them.

It becomes a key at the instant of its creation because of what it is intended for. The intention defines the object, not how it is being used.

...

The phone became a phone at the instant of its creation because of how it was created and what it was intended for. It is the intended function that defines an object, not what it's actually being used for.

...

No. If I was created for the express purpose of holding an antenna, I am an antenna holder.

...

Intentions can absolutely. What the maker intended to do with the key he created on April 4, 2012, at 1:44 PM is the same 5 minutes from now as it will be tomorrow, as it will be next year, and as it will be at the end of time. The past is set in stone.

This is where I'm going to have to ask you to prove it. How do you know that the past is set in stone? That intentions are carved into the very items that are made? We have a fundamental disagreement as to how the world operates.

Not that the argument will be settled either way, but this is probably the biggest hurdle. I never agreed that intentions were eternal. You think they are. What now?

Ill tell you why. Because your ideas and morals are all cercumstantial.
Stop being one of those people.

OR we could just let bygones be bygones.

What heartless just displayed is how the correct answer is the one possesing both a proof and a logic which are independent of isolated incidents.

What he proved was that, given his own principles and rules, everything worked out in a fashion according to them. That doesn't say very much. Heartless followed through on his logic, so you can call his answers valid (I think?). You agree with his assumptions, so it may seem like the "correct" answer to you, but I don't agree with them, so the answer doesn't have the same impact on me.

Philosophy is not a series mindblowing questions,
It is a series of cercumstantial ideas which you may either play along with or use your own brain on.

If you're going to define philosophy and how a debate of philosophy should be run, you're going to have to be more explicit than that. Maybe back it up and substantiate it with some proof.

But you're right; asking mindblowing questions won't get a debate anywhere, unless someone has an epiphany. But that's my way of learning another person's views, and more specifically how far they're willing to take them. Though really I just wanted to call bullshit, since I don't think most people would really want to think of themselves as antenna holders.

A friend mentioned recently that a philosophy professor posed this,
"If a man can marry a man, why cant a father marry a son?"

Apparently, this friend's mind was blown.
I pointed out that homosexuality is very different from incest and they should not be treated the same.She asked me how I can just disreguard the whole topic.
I told her cercumstance and slippery slopes do not make a valid arguement. The format of the question is intentionally tailored.

At that point, she had aleady decided to ignore my point. First because my mind was not blown and second because she knows I am conservative and crams me into the category that means I cram everything into categories of black and white.

Your views and her views aside, it sounds like you dismissed her point before she dismissed yours. Just saying, "They're different," and then moving on isn't going to satisfy her. Why are they different? That's what she wanted to know.

There is nothing wrong with a question that is purely circumstantial. You don't need to take it as antagonistic. It's just testing to see if, given your beliefs, you can output a valid explanation for what seems to be an inconsistency.

Edit: All the keys have influenced the ads. They're showing me to locksmiths.

[Heartless Angel]

Listing definitions doesn't do anything for this debate. But it's fun! There sure are a lot of them.

When the debate is in fact whether something is or is not by definition a key, yes, it is rather relevant to the debate. In fact I would call knowing what the definition of key is vital to determining whether or not something fits it.

This is where I'm going to have to ask you to prove it. How do you know that the past is set in stone? That intentions are carved into the very items that are made? We have a fundamental disagreement as to how the world operates.

Not that the argument will be settled either way, but this is probably the biggest hurdle. I never agreed that intentions were eternal. You think they are. What now?

Because currently there is absolutely 0 reason to believe anything else. Time is linear, we have passed a point in the line, we can no longer go back to it. that point is not influenced by any after it. The intent doesn't need to be 'carved' anywhere. It's simply a part of the definition of a term used to reffer to an object. This topic really isn't all that deep. It's a simple question of what qualities earn an object the term we use for it.

There's no way for an intention to be anything but eternal. What you thought yesterday is what you thought yesterday, you do not have the ability to change that today. You can change what you think today certainly, but yesterday has come and gone, its events are now unchangeable.

If you want to argue the complexities of linear time and its implications, this is probably the wrong place for it.

What he proved was that, given his own principles and rules, everything worked out in a fashion according to them. That doesn't say very much. Heartless followed through on his logic, so you can call his answers valid (I think?). You agree with his assumptions, so it may seem like the "correct" answer to you, but I don't agree with them, so the answer doesn't have the same impact on me.

That's all anybody can ever 'prove'. And so it is what we all must do before our ideas are accepted by others who share our fundamental understanding of reality. If you have a different belief, to have it accepted, you too must 'prove' it in this fashion. Thus far all you have offered is assumptions and suppositions, and circumstances to see how far I'd go with my ideas. I've gone the distance with logic, if you wish to continue your own line of reasoning, I'd recommend attempting the same method.

But that's my way of learning another person's views, and more specifically how far they're willing to take them. Though really I just wanted to call bullshit, since I don't think most people would really want to think of themselves as antenna holders.

Ah, but therein lies the beauty of objective, non circumstantial thoughts, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether I like the idea of being an antenna holder if it's what I am. Objectivity doesn't bend to circumstance or personal feelings. The Truth doesn't give an aardvark's anus whether or not we like it.

Your views and her views aside, it sounds like you dismissed her point before she dismissed yours. Just saying, "They're different," and then moving on isn't going to satisfy her. Why are they different? That's what she wanted to know.

There is nothing wrong with a question that is purely circumstantial. You don't need to take it as antagonistic. It's just testing to see if, given your beliefs, you can output a valid explanation for what seems to be an inconsistency.

Edit: All the keys have influenced the ads. They're showing me to locksmiths.

Just throwing out there, that was Order's post, not mine, you misquoted lol. On topic, there is nothing there that sounds like he ever dismissed her views. He moved immediately into applying logic and critical thinking to a solution, sounds like she just didn't care to listen to that because she was too busy marveling at the complexity of the question to want to have it ruined by a simple answer. Unfortunately quite often there is a simple answer, and the question wasn't all that mindblowing to begin with if one actually thinks about it rationally.

[SOLDIER #819]

The phone became a phone at the instant of its creation because of how it was created and what it was intended for. It is the intended function that defines an object, not what it's actually being used for. The intention of the creator at the instant of creation never varies, the current situation of the object changes nothing.

Because currently there is absolutely 0 reason to believe anything else. Time is linear, we have passed a point in the line, we can no longer go back to it. that point is not influenced by any after it. The intent doesn't need to be 'carved' anywhere. It's simply a part of the definition of a term used to reffer to an object. This topic really isn't all that deep. It's a simple question of what qualities earn an object the term we use for it.

Those are still assumptions as to how the universe truly works, which I doubt scientists can only really say so much about. We don't need to worry about that though. That wasn't my intention, nor was it to have you quote the dictionary to explain something both of us know very well.

I'm not trying to to take this deeper than I should, really, but fundamental differences in belief usually are. Let me rephrase the question: "Why is it that the thoughts/intentions of the creator have precedence over a user of the object, or anyone else, in determining what an object is?"

I personally don't see why one thought is more important than another in determining an object's value. Art is very much like that. Everyone sees something different, and one opinion on the matter isn't any more or less true than the other. That the creator of the object somehow determines this is, I think, an oversimplification of the issue.

Like, what if the creator of an object does so by accident? A caveman makes a wooden spear, but by grinding it down sets the stick aflame. He throws it down, scared, and runs off. Another caveman picks it up and uses it as a torch. So then, is the item a failed spear or a successful torch? I'd say it's more of a torch, but by your logic it's still a spear since its creator's intention takes precedence. Yet, by definition (I don't think you need me to C&P it ), it's not a spear. So...

What if an artist begins to paint a picture of his aunt, and halfway through he gets a little lazy. When he finishes it he looks at it and says, "Ah, it's my mother." And yeah, it's much closer to his mother than to his aunt. He had never consciously thought of painting his mother, and there is no proof that he had "subconsciously" thought of it. So his original intent is at odds with what he views it as now. Which is it? It could swing either way in this case.

That same artist gets drunk one night as he paints and can't remember wtf he was thinking when he lifted the brush. He look at it and says it's a cat. His friend says it's a duck. Who's more right? The person who was drunk may have had an intention, or maybe had none. Or maybe he changed his mind on whim some 20 times throughout the painting process. I'd say it's whatever people want it to be. Intention would have zero to do with its identity.

What if two people are working on the same object, but neither tells the other their intention of what they are trying to make. When they finish, they both were successful in creating what they had wanted. But they wanted to create different things. One guy wanted a small knife, the other wanted a key. So who's intention gets precedence? Who gets more time with their baby? Or is it both things? But if it's both, it suggests that the object's identity goes beyond that of either creator.

They get angry and set it aside. Friend comes in right then and uses it as a letter opener. At this point the creators don't give a **** what it is, so they mutually agree to call it something else entirely. Does this decision supersede their original intent? Personally, I think it can be anything anyone wants it to be.

--

We're also looking at this from different POVs, I think, which makes it harder to debate. Going by your linear time thing, you're viewing this problem as someone outside looking in, like a diorama. You assume that you can see every point from every angle at any time and are therefore able to judge what the creator's intention was at the time he created the creation.

But there hasn't been in a time in my experience where I can say I've experienced being omniscient in any matter. Our experience is limited to what we are able to perceive. Senses and second-hand information are how we come to conclusions. So to me, the "truth" behind the identity of some creation, based on intent, can't even be shown to exist.

Thus far all you have offered is assumptions and suppositions, and circumstances to see how far I'd go with my ideas. I've gone the distance with logic, if you wish to continue your own line of reasoning, I'd recommend attempting the same method.

Let's be a little more clear here: you've gone the distance with the logic that follows from your own assumptions. So effectively, like me, you haven't offered anything other than your own opinion. Which is the norm for most philosophical debates.

Ah, but therein lies the beauty of objective, non circumstantial thoughts, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether I like the idea of being an antenna holder if it's what I am. Objectivity doesn't bend to circumstance or personal feelings. The Truth doesn't give an aardvark's anus whether or not we like it.

Assumptions qualify as circumstances under which your logic/thoughts operate. These are things that you went ahead and decided to be true. I never agreed to them personally. Which, again, is why we aren't going to agree on the conclusion. Even if you were objective in your analysis using a given set of rules, you yourself handpicked and selected those rules because they sync up with you the most. I don't think you can prove those outright, just like I can't prove mine.

Just throwing out there, that was Order's post, not mine, you misquoted lol. On topic, there is nothing there that sounds like he ever dismissed her views. He moved immediately into applying logic and critical thinking to a solution, sounds like she just didn't care to listen to that because she was too busy marveling at the complexity of the question to want to have it ruined by a simple answer.

Oops. But if it's all the same, I'll just disregard what you were saying. I mean, you just did it with mine... Haha.

[Heartless Angel]

Those are still assumptions as to how the universe truly works, which I doubt scientists can only really say so much about. We don't need to worry about that though. That wasn't my intention, nor was it to have you quote the dictionary to explain something both of us know very well.

I'm not trying to to take this deeper than I should, really, but fundamental differences in belief usually are. Let me rephrase the question: "Why is it that the thoughts/intentions of the creator have precedence over a user of the object, or anyone else, in determining what an object is?"

In the case of any and all objects, this is not necessarily the case. Because not ALL objects have their definition rooted in the intended purpose. Key however does, so in the case of a key, the creator's intention is what defines it.

I personally don't see why one thought is more important than another in determining an object's value. Art is very much like that. Everyone sees something different, and one opinion on the matter isn't any more or less true than the other. That the creator of the object somehow determines this is, I think, an oversimplification of the issue.

Value, never, definition, sometimes. My key makes a very good letter opener when I'm too lazy to go get a knife, but it remains a key, because it was cut to open the lock on my car door. In cases where the intent is a part of the definition, one man's view is sufficient to create a fact.

Like, what if the creator of an object does so by accident? A caveman makes a wooden spear, but by grinding it down sets the stick aflame. He throws it down, scared, and runs off. Another caveman picks it up and uses it as a torch. So then, is the item a failed spear or a successful torch? I'd say it's more of a torch, but by your logic it's still a spear since its creator's intention takes precedence. Yet, by definition (I don't think you need me to C&P it ), it's not a spear. So...

Again, not ALL items have their definition relying upon the intent of creation, however this is not a discussion of all objects, this is a discussion of a key. A key DOES have its definition rooted in the intention of creation. Many objects do have their definitions rooted in intent, but there are exceptions.

What if two people are working on the same object, but neither tells the other their intention of what they are trying to make. When they finish, they both were successful in creating what they had wanted. But they wanted to create different things. One guy wanted a small knife, the other wanted a key. So who's intention gets precedence? Who gets more time with their baby? Or is it both things? But if it's both, it suggests that the object's identity goes beyond that of either creator.

While a fun idea to play with, wouldn't you think the guy making a knife would question why it was having such a strange shape cut into it, one that in facts deducts from its usefulness as a blade? Anyways, by definition a knife has a sharp edge and handle, so unless it was one seriously ****ed up key design, this couldn't happen. If it did, it would be both by definition. There are many words we can use to describe the same object in most cases, most objects fit the definition of many words. A key does not fit the definition of a knife, and can therefore not be accurately called a knife. It can be used to perform a similar task, but it is not by definition a knife. There is really nothing terribly deep or philosophical about this discussion, it's a simple matter of does an object fit the definition of a term. A key fits the definition of key with or without a currently existing, functioning lock as long as the intent was there when it was created. That's really all there is to it.

They get angry and set it aside. Friend comes in right then and uses it as a letter opener. At this point the creators don't give a **** what it is, so they mutually agree to call it something else entirely. Does this decision supersede their original intent? Personally, I think it can be anything anyone wants it to be.

It can function as more than one thing, but for it to be by definition that thing, it must meet all the requirements of that term. A key does not meet the definition of a letter opener. If the accepted definition of the word changes, this may no longer be the case, but as it stands, the key is a key, not a letter opener.

We're also looking at this from different POVs, I think, which makes it harder to debate. Going by your linear time thing, you're viewing this problem as someone outside looking in, like a diorama. You assume that you can see every point from every angle at any time and are therefore able to judge what the creator's intention was at the time he created the creation.

What I think the creator intended is irrelevant. When the locksmith who makes keys for a living cuts a piece of metal in the specific size and shape required to open a specific lock, one can reasonably infer that was his intention. We can therefore reasonably assume this object is in fact a key. In the case of other items this is not necessarily the case. In the case of said other items however, intent is not a part of the definition, so the lack of knowing the intent is entirely irrelevant. In my counter arguments to vague, intentionally misleading scenarios, I was arguing from the same rule that intent made definition, this may or may not have been true in the case of any of these words, but the argument was to prove the validity of the rule itself. That the rule is not applicable to any object does not alter the fact that it is perfectly applicable to the key, which is and remains the subject of this discussion, you're making this much MUCH harder than it needs to be.

But there hasn't been in a time in my experience where I can say I've experienced being omniscient in any matter. Our experience is limited to what we are able to perceive. Senses and second-hand information are how we come to conclusions. So to me, the "truth" behind the identity of some creation, based on intent, can't even be shown to exist.

If you really WANT to play the unnecessarily deep philosophical mind**** game, nothing can really be proven to be absolute truth, ever. I myself have posed hat very argument in various religious threads on TFF, and have defended it fairly well. But, that is a lot deeper than anyone needs to go to judge something as simple as a key, in which case the intent is generally blatantly obvious. Yes, in some nonsensical exceedingly improbable if not impossible bizarro world scenario, we could have a key that is by definition not a key, but in reality this scenario is worthless, because it would never realistically occur.

Let's be a little more clear here: you've gone the distance with the logic that follows from your own assumptions. So effectively, like me, you haven't offered anything other than your own opinion. Which is the norm for most philosophical debates.

Difference being, I have supported my stance with a single logical rule, following a valid form whereas you've changed the subject, thrown out ridiculous scenarios in which the rule makes less sense or is less pleasant, not offering an iota of logical support to your stance. Philosophy is only done when one follows the rule of logic.

Assumptions qualify as circumstances under which your logic/thoughts operate. These are things that you went ahead and decided to be true. I never agreed to them personally. Which, again, is why we aren't going to agree on the conclusion. Even if you were objective in your analysis using a given set of rules, you yourself handpicked and selected those rules because they sync up with you the most. I don't think you can prove those outright, just like I can't prove mine.

If you haven't agreed to something as simple as the definition of key, what purpose does your arguing the point serve? I chose the 'rule' that came attached to the definition of the word key. If you're not planning on following that rule, you're not even on the same subject as the rest of this thread.

[SOLDIER #819]

Moved this to the top because I feel it's the most important bit.

Difference being, I have supported my stance with a single logical rule, following a valid form whereas you've changed the subject, thrown out ridiculous scenarios in which the rule makes less sense or is less pleasant, not offering an iota of logical support to your stance. Philosophy is only done when one follows the rule of logic.

And I find it odd that you have posited a series of assumptions to support the claim that one particular item, a key, must absolutely have its identity determined by the intention of a creator and no one else, whereas the method of determination may differ for others.

The only reason I keep on throwing out these ridiculous scenarios is because you haven't told me the specifics behind your reasoning. Yes, you have stuck to your guns and been consistent in your handling of what I've asked, but that means very little to me if I don't understand the logic that brought you to the assumptions that you are currently following through on. The most you have said is, and I'm paraphrasing here, "that's it's just how it ought to be." It's not convincing. I understand that I could just ask "Why?" an infinite number of times and we still won't get to the answer, but I don't intend to do it more than once. At that point, the argument will probably end.

As to why I haven't to supported my own claim (that being that the identity of an item changes depending on context), it's mostly because you haven't asked me any questions regarding it. I've already stated my stance, but unless prompted for specific information there isn't much more I really am burning to say. There are only so many ways to go from there, the most apparent to me being to try and poke holes in your argument, or by getting you to substantiate your claims. So again, questions are necessary to get information to do that, even if you may think their format is dumb.

In the case of any and all objects, this is not necessarily the case. Because not ALL objects have their definition rooted in the intended purpose. Key however does, so in the case of a key, the creator's intention is what defines it.

That the rule is not applicable to any object does not alter the fact that it is perfectly applicable to the key...

How do we know what objects have their identities determined by intention? And the ones that are determined by different means? Why are some objects' identities determined by intention, and others not? Why does intention even matter in establishing identity, as opposed to how it is used?

I get the gist of your system of thought, but not why you chose it over other possibilities. It's much easier to just say that an object's identity changes with the world. You have created a world where a key's identity, along with other unidentified objects, are determined by intention alone. Yet, you also admit this does not apply to all objects. Without a proper reason behind why you fitted the world with these assumptions, it feels arbitrary.

While a fun idea to play with, wouldn't you think the guy making a knife would question why it was having such a strange shape cut into it, one that in facts deducts from its usefulness as a blade? Anyways, by definition a knife has a sharp edge and handle, so unless it was one seriously ****ed up key design, this couldn't happen. If it did, it would be both by definition.

Exposure to JRPGs have eroded any common sense I have relating to the functionality of blades.

What I think the creator intended is irrelevant. When the locksmith who makes keys for a living cuts a piece of metal in the specific size and shape required to open a specific lock, one can reasonably infer that was his intention. We can therefore reasonably assume this object is in fact a key.

In assuming, you are thinking. For the purposes of my post, to assume something to be and to think of something as being are the same.

Don't hold my poor phrasing against me?

If you haven't agreed to something as simple as the definition of key, what purpose does your arguing the point serve? I chose the 'rule' that came attached to the definition of the word key. If you're not planning on following that rule, you're not even on the same subject as the rest of this thread.

I'm going to attempt to clarify my position here and see where that takes us.

The specific definition of a key is not what's important here, nor are any of your assumptions really dependent upon upholding its definition; it is the label/the name/what we refer to the object we know presently as 'key' in varying contexts.

You are saying "it" is, in reality, always a "key" regardless of the when and where because its creator intended it to be as such.

I was saying that, in reality, its present name/label/etc. changes depending on where the item is, how it is used, etc. So yes, at one point it may have very well been a key and fulfilled its function as one, and acknowledged as such for that. It may be become one again the future when locks flicker back into existence. But as it stands, there are no locks. It cannot, at this point and time, fulfill its function as a key.

Rowan said that the present ability to fulfill its function has no bearing on whether or not it is called a "key", as it was already at some point a key and ably functioned as such. I am saying that that cannot be so. If ask me why I think that, I'd ask you the same. Why does a key, in the present, retain its label as a key if it can no longer open locks (even if it is on account of there being no locks). Just what bearing do past abilities have on present abilities? But if you were to press me to answer anyway...

This is where your definition of a key would become important, if only as a check. It said that a key was made to fit into a lock and move its bolt. If it can't satisfy the definition, then it can't be called a key. Can it fit into a lock and move the bolt, right now? It can't, on account of there being no lock. You can say that it once satisfied that definition and that it WAS a key. But the question is in reference to present circumstances. It is a matter of IS, not WAS. Does the object, at this particular moment, satisfy the definition? It doesn't. So it IS NOT a key.

You may say, strictly following your definition (which I think would be placing too much stock in whoever wrote it, and is nitpicking), that the intention of the creator to have it fit into a lock is enough to substantiate the object's identity as a key, and that therefore the lock's current lack of existence is irrelevant. But by discounting the importance of the lock's existence, you'd be trampling on the circumstances that gave rise to the intention of the creator to make the key. S/he created the object as a key with the expectation (and as such, intention) that it would unlock a lock; that it would, in actuality, fulfill its purpose as stated in the definition and continue to do so.

So, the key being able to fulfill its purpose is intrinsic to the creator's intent when making the key. With the key's purpose unfulfilled, it does not match the creator's intent (that it would open a lock). Therefore, at that moment anyway, the object is still not a key.

The problem worsens if you take the "lock" disappearing from the 'world', and include human minds within the scope of the 'world'. This would mean that the idea of a lock simply is not there in the present, nor a physical manifestation of it. If there is nothing currently that can substantiate a lock's existence, then the a key, who's definition is dependent on a lock, can't possibly even exist. I mean, if a lock doesn't exist, how can there be a definition that includes a lock in it? The lock exists nowhere.

Unless you are saying that definitions persist in spite of conditions a given time. But that's a huge assumption, and again, I don't really agree with eternal forms and all that, haha.

[seanb]

Of course its still a key. Look at it, its not a jellybaby.

Just because its defining counterpart has diminished or disappeared (the lock) doesn't mean the key loses its identity. I imagined to myself, 'is a father still a father if his son is dead?' I think he still is.

hence, like a virgin

[Heartless Angel]

And I find it odd that you have posited a series of assumptions to support the claim that one particular item, a key, must absolutely have its identity determined by the intention of a creator and no one else, whereas the method of determination may differ for others.

There is no series of assumptions, what I have presented is the definition of the word key. Intent is a part of it. Therefore in the case of a key, intent is what defines it. the definition of the word key determines this, not your or my personal feelings on the matter.

The only reason I keep on throwing out these ridiculous scenarios is because you haven't told me the specifics behind your reasoning. Yes, you have stuck to your guns and been consistent in your handling of what I've asked, but that means very little to me if I don't understand the logic that brought you to the assumptions that you are currently following through on. The most you have said is, and I'm paraphrasing here, "that's it's just how it ought to be." It's not convincing. I understand that I could just ask "Why?" an infinite number of times and we still won't get to the answer, but I don't intend to do it more than once. At that point, the argument will probably end.

Not at all. I never said anything ought to be, that's a normative claim, and normatives are logically worthless. What I have 'stuck to' is the definition of the word key, which is vital to answering the question, without it, none of this means anything, we can go nowhere with this idea without it. My logic follows from the definition of key.

As to why I haven't to supported my own claim (that being that the identity of an item changes depending on context), it's mostly because you haven't asked me any questions regarding it. I've already stated my stance, but unless prompted for specific information there isn't much more I really am burning to say. There are only so many ways to go from there, the most apparent to me being to try and poke holes in your argument, or by getting you to substantiate your claims. So again, questions are necessary to get information to do that, even if you may think their format is dumb.

The format isn't the issue, the content is completely nonsensical and mostly irrelevant. When you offer a stance, the burden of proof is on you to give it some credibility and intellectual value.

How do we know what objects have their identities determined by intention? And the ones that are determined by different means? Why are some objects' identities determined by intention, and others not? Why does intention even matter in establishing identity, as opposed to how it is used?

We whip out a dictionary and read the definition of the word <.< The issue isn't of identity or function, but of terminology. A word only means as much as its definition.

I get the gist of your system of thought, but not why you chose it over other possibilities. It's much easier to just say that an object's identity changes with the world. You have created a world where a key's identity, along with other unidentified objects, are determined by intention alone. Yet, you also admit this does not apply to all objects. Without a proper reason behind why you fitted the world with these assumptions, it feels arbitrary.

Except that there is no definition for the word that contains any part of that. All words do not follow this because not all words have the same definition. Key is among those that do, hence the citation of its definition. Any and all words whose definition is derived from intent follow this rule, those which do not, do not.

The specific definition of a key is not what's important here, nor are any of your assumptions really dependent upon upholding its definition; it is the label/the name/what we refer to the object we know presently as 'key' in varying contexts.

Right, so as I said earlier, you're arguing about something entirely different than the rest of this thread. You're talking functionality, not terminology. Based solely upon functionality, a key is not a key unless it is currently turning inside of a lock and releasing its mechanism. And this is not a computer unless it is powered on. And a pen is not a pen unless I'm writing something. That's something entirely different from definitions.

You are saying "it" is, in reality, always a "key" regardless of the when and where because its creator intended it to be as such.

I was saying that, in reality, its present name/label/etc. changes depending on where the item is, how it is used, etc. So yes, at one point it may have very well been a key and fulfilled its function as one, and acknowledged as such for that. It may be become one again the future when locks flicker back into existence. But as it stands, there are no locks. It cannot, at this point and time, fulfill its function as a key.

I'm saying its still a key because it still fits the definition of key. Whether it is currently functioning as a key is not relevant to whether or not the object is still in fact by definition a key.

Rowan said that the present ability to fulfill its function has no bearing on whether or not it is called a "key", as it was already at some point a key and ably functioned as such. I am saying that that cannot be so. If ask me why I think that, I'd ask you the same. Why does a key, in the present, retain its label as a key if it can no longer open locks (even if it is on account of there being no locks). Just what bearing do past abilities have on present abilities? But if you were to press me to answer anyway...

Because, once again, the definition of the label is based upon form and intended function, not form and current use. Therefore a change in current use has no impact whatsoever on this label. The word key does not imply that it currently functions and matches an existing lock, it only implies that it did at one point and was created to do so. If this is true, current situation does not change this objects definition as a key.

This is where your definition of a key would become important, if only as a check. It said that a key was made to fit into a lock and move its bolt. If it can't satisfy the definition, then it can't be called a key. Can it fit into a lock and move the bolt, right now? It can't, on account of there being no lock. You can say that it once satisfied that definition and that it WAS a key. But the question is in reference to present circumstances. It is a matter of IS, not WAS. Does the object, at this particular moment, satisfy the definition? It doesn't. So it IS NOT a key.

Once more, the definition doesn't, I repeat, DOES NOT require that it currently opens a lock. It requires that it was created to fit a lock and open it. It does not have to be used on the lock even one time to meet the definition of the word key. So once again, what it currently can or can not do does not have any impact whatsoever on whether or not it is a key, the definition of the word key is not derived from this. The definition of the word contains only intent, which is determined at the point of creation, so nothing outside of the point of creation is relevant.

You may say, strictly following your definition (which I think would be placing too much stock in whoever wrote it, and is nitpicking), that the intention of the creator to have it fit into a lock is enough to substantiate the object's identity as a key, and that therefore the lock's current lack of existence is irrelevant. But by discounting the importance of the lock's existence, you'd be trampling on the circumstances that gave rise to the intention of the creator to make the key. S/he created the object as a key with the expectation (and as such, intention) that it would unlock a lock; that it would, in actuality, fulfill its purpose as stated in the definition and continue to do so.

So, the key being able to fulfill its purpose is intrinsic to the creator's intent when making the key. With the key's purpose unfulfilled, it does not match the creator's intent (that it would open a lock). Therefore, at that moment anyway, the object is still not a key.

Once again, whether it ever was used in accordance with that intention is not relevant. The intention alone is sufficient to meet the definition. The intent was for it to be used to open a lock, whether it ever actually was does not change that that was the intent. Intent is what we want in the future, the future's failure to live up to our desires does not mean we did not have those desires.The locksmiths thoughts yesterday were not affected by my not using the key today. Intent alone is all the definition of the word key requires, that it did not live up to that intent does not change the intent.

The problem worsens if you take the "lock" disappearing from the 'world', and include human minds within the scope of the 'world'. This would mean that the idea of a lock simply is not there in the present, nor a physical manifestation of it. If there is nothing currently that can substantiate a lock's existence, then the a key, who's definition is dependent on a lock, can't possibly even exist. I mean, if a lock doesn't exist, how can there be a definition that includes a lock in it? The lock exists nowhere.

It would still meet the current definition of the word key, even if nobody were familiar with the word or what it meant. If the definition of the word actually changed, then the conditions to satisfy the definition would also change, but they have not right now. If the lock disappears right now, the dictionary does not rewrite itself. Until the definition of the word changes to match a new situation, its current definition is the only one that matters. If we send a modern key into the stone age, it would not be a key to them, because that word means nothing to them, but it would still be, and will always be a key by OUR current definition. The current definition is the only one we are evaluating, because we are now. We are not in the stone age.

Unless you are saying that definitions persist in spite of conditions a given time. But that's a huge assumption, and again, I don't really agree with eternal forms and all that, haha.

No, they don't necessarily, but we aren't evaluating what the word may or may not mean in the future. In a future circumstance, it may not be a key by a future definition, but it still is by ours right now. It will always be a key by our current definition. The definition is attached to the current situation, yes, but so are we. We can't use the definitions of another situation, because we are not a part of said situation. The definition of our situation will always consider this object a key. In the year 2197 a scrap of metal that once opened a door may not meet the 2197 definition of "key" but it still meets our 2012 definition of key, and always will. Therefore by our 2012 definition of the word, regardless of circumstance the object will always be a key as it is currently defined.

[SOLDIER #819]

There is no series of assumptions, what I have presented is the definition of the word key.

At the very least, you seem to be assuming that:
1. The definition you gave, not the OP, is utterly infallible.
2. Your definition posits the existence of both a creator and an intention.
3. We are arguing within a vacuum, where only the definition and object (if even that) need to be commented on.
4. The intention implied by the definition exists at any time after its inception (even in places where it is not known), thereby validating your argument at virtually any given time.
5. The definition and the object can sustain their existence even if other components mentioned in the definition do not exist. (e.g. the creator nor a lock need not exist)

There are probably more.

I didn't agree to that definition, and my first reply was to the OP, which never had such a definition. Rowan even defined it himself. And why would I agree to your definition anyway? Just like my questions favor me, your definition favors your stance, in that your stance is built around that particular definition. We're both very well aware of that, just how we're both very much aware that this is a definition you arbitrarily picked up from dictionary.com.

Even if I took your definition seriously from the start (I hadn't even read it through and through when I made my first post, since Rowan's post had induced a fiery lust in me to post immediately), I didn't agree to analyze it and nothing else. If you think I did, I'm not sure why. We both know there wouldn't be room for discussion, debate, argument, or even me ranting if I did. Accepting it would have defeated the purpose of the thread.

That said, I think it's better for both of us that you not change your definition. Your argument would change, and then I'll have wasted all that time trying to get you to stop with the intention stuff. =P But just to make clear:

A small piece of shaped metal, with incisions cut to fit the wards of a particular lock, that is inserted into a lock and turned to open...

a : a usually metal instrument by which the bolt of a lock is turned

a. A notched and grooved, usually metal implement that is turned to open or close a lock.

lock and key, fastening fitted to an entryway, such as a gate or door, or a container, such as a cabinet, drawer or safe, to keep it closed and/or prevent unauthorized access or use. Locks typically consist of a sliding, pivoted, or rotary bolt protected by a fixed or movable object. A lock may be opened by a mechanical, magnetic, electric, electronic, or electromechanical key or by employing a code or sequence of numbers or letters.

Other definitions exist, and don't emphasize intention half as much. Why of all the ones...?

However, the real issue, bigger to me than anything else in this post, is this: your stance leading from your definition cited creates an exception for that one object alone. Other man-made objects may or may not gain their respective identities from the intention of the creator, but for a key it must absolutely be so. Why? How is this difference explained?

Even if we say your definition is absolutely right, it still relies on mechanism outside of itself. That is, intention. Why does intention treat a key differently from other things? Just because? It sounds odd.

We whip out a dictionary and read the definition of the word <.< The issue isn't of identity or function, but of terminology. A word only means as much as its definition.

I'm not sure when we decided that this would be the route we would be taking, regardless of whether or not I disagree with it. You may ask, "what else is there?" I'm saying it'd be the one that keeps the discussion going, rather than the method attempts to swiftly finish it with your first post. :p

The format isn't the issue, the content is completely nonsensical and mostly irrelevant. When you offer a stance, the burden of proof is on you to give it some credibility and intellectual value.

To you, yes, but again, it's how I've made sense of your argument and where you're going with it. I can't force you to answer these questions, and you seem to be more than willing to do so regardless.

My stance was merely in opposition to the OP's assertion. I wasn't expecting a debate over it, honestly. To prove it, I'd have to also prove why context determines identity and why words and their definitions are dependent upon humanity's use of the object tied to it. This, of course, falls very, very far outside the bounds of the thread. It's more effort than I'm willing to put forth, assuming that any amount of effort will actually be able to prove something like that.

You yourself have overwrote Rowan's rather open definition with a much more troublesome one; one that gives way to a number of consequences and assumptions that no one ever agreed to. Neither of us have justified ourselves, and the burden of proof falls just as heavily on you to prove that the definition you provided is somehow more necessary than others. That being said, if you're willing to put up with all my talk, I'm willing to go along with your definition.

So, the key being able to fulfill its purpose is intrinsic to the creator's intent when making the key. With the key's purpose unfulfilled, it does not match the creator's intent (that it would open a lock). Therefore, at that moment anyway, the object is still not a key.

Once again, whether it ever was used in accordance with that intention is not relevant. The intention alone is sufficient to meet the definition. The intent was for it to be used to open a lock, whether it ever actually was does not change that that was the intent. Intent is what we want in the future, the future's failure to live up to our desires does not mean we did not have those desires.

Alternatively, I could define an intention as the thought that dictates the personal context of an action in the present. I could assume that the creator, at the moment he finalized the key with an action, intended for it to be able to function in a certain way from that moment on, so long as it remained in the form he committed the metal to (since if its form changed after, it would not longer be the object the creator made).

On an aside, we haven't really defined what an intention is or how it operates, which is probably one of the two most important things here.

In his intention, it is assumed that he is trying to create a key. But his intention doesn't strictly follow your definition of a key. I really don't know if anyone would follow that pattern of logic. He (or I) would think, "Okay, after I put the finishing touches on this, it will be a key, an object that can open locks/a lock."

His thought would not follow your definition and be, "Okay, after I put the finishing touches on this, it will be a key, an object that is intended by its creator (me, of course, ho ho ho) to open a lock, but doesn't necessarily have to. Then it'd be a failed key, but a key nonetheless. Oh boy, I can't wait to finish my key, even if it doesn't work."

People don't think like that. Instinctively, they think of keys as things that can successfully unlock a lock, not just objects that may or may not do so. I would say that unless he unlocks something with it, he can not confirm whether the object is a key or a malformed lump of scrap metal.

So let's say he opens the lock. Then later the lock disappears. Someone says that it's still a key. A key to what? What does it successfully unlock now?

Reiterating: it WAS a key, and unlocked a lock at one point. But now, with the lock gone, the object cannot successfully unlock anything. Then, it can't be a key.

How intention operates is rather murky. We haven't really agreed on anything. How it affects the object is unclear.

A lot of this is just musings. Your definition does not match up with what we would probably intend for a key to be. I wonder if that means anything. You would probably say not, so long as the definition holds. =P

The problem worsens if you take the "lock" disappearing from the 'world', and include human minds within the scope of the 'world'. This would mean that the idea of a lock simply is not there in the present, nor a physical manifestation of it. If there is nothing currently that can substantiate a lock's existence, then the a key, who's definition is dependent on a lock, can't possibly even exist. I mean, if a lock doesn't exist, how can there be a definition that includes a lock in it? The lock exists nowhere.

It would still meet the current definition of the word key, even if nobody were familiar with the word or what it meant. If the definition of the word actually changed, then the conditions to satisfy the definition would also change, but they have not right now. If the lock disappears right now, the dictionary does not rewrite itself.

Depending on how you take Rowan's words, the dictionary could very well rewrite itself. You were saying before that names like key and lock are just definitions, so a "lock" disappearing could mean the the word and its definition go with it. In which case, you would be left with a definition that says: ""Key - A small metal instrument specially cut to "Key - A small metal instrument specially cut to fit ~~~~~~~~~~ move its bolt." It's a broken definition.

Though that's not what I meant, so you don't have to answer. Until we get other things cleared up (if we do) I'm going to hold off...

[Order]

Soldier, you seem to be enjoying the intended ambiguity of the question.
Simply disagreeing with someone is neither a stand, nor a logic.
You can point out as many alternate definitions of the word as you like. The idea is to pick one which fits a position.
If you choose to state that a key loses meaning without its lock, you should do so like this;
An object which cannot carry out its purpose is meaningless.
A key with no lock is an artifact, not a tool; just as a city without inhabitants is a ruin, not a city.
Likewise, a person without a home is not a citizen, they are a hobo.
None of these things are transformed in the examples, just as the key with no lock is not transformed. The key's physical form remains the same, but its purpose is now to describe the inverse of the tumblers of a lock which no longer exists.
It is a relic of time which has passed.


Theres your mystical answer.
If you wanted me to play devils advocate, just ask.
I am not single minded.
I am utilitarian and tend to argue the first point which comes to mind. I prepair for debate by coming up with solid counter-logic and planting the kernals of retorts in my opening statements.

I'm not being mean or abusive, so anyone who feels threatened, spare me the response.
This is meant to be taken as a demonstration of proper debate.
And possibly, narcissism (did I spell that right?)

[SOLDIER #819]

Soldier, you seem to be enjoying the intended ambiguity of the question.
Simply disagreeing with someone is neither a stand, nor a logic.
You can point out as many alternate definitions of the word as you like. The idea is to pick one which fits a position.

I'll keep that in mind, since you seem to take it so seriously. No sarcasm.

We'd still encounter the same problems down the line, however, even if I followed your example (though I'll make sure to beef up my first post, just in case you or Heartless feel like responding to it ). Taking a stance and having a solid opinion doesn't really change that, unfortunately. To debate, we'd have to make concessions as to the definition, in spite of our own feelings, and rework our arguments accordingly. Then we'd have to defend an argument we don't necessarily believe. After a quick debate, we'd have no avenues left to us other than to just prove our argument outright... but we'd never get there, because nothing ever really gets proven in a philosophical debate, no matter what you do.

Rationalistic procedure, proofs, and truthtables are boring when used in debate. :\ We'd end it in a few posts and there'd be nothing left to do, nor will we have REALLY gotten anywhere, even if we were being logical. We'd know everything there is to know about everything by now if the method really worked. I don't want to make a truth table; it's no fun. I'm sorry if I wasted time with my questions and whatnot. I think it's more entertaining, though.

No offense taken whatsoever, by the way.

[Order]

Well youre right, I do take things like debate seriously. I also do tend to get accused of being condescending (probably because tone is impossible to convey in writing).
I do appreciate that you give me the benefit of the doubt.

As for my response,
Yes, my answer statement was quick and worded in definate terms. That does not make for a short arguement, having an "opponent" who isnt prepaired to retort makes a short debate.
Dancing around an issue does not make a debate fun.
The clash of two well thought and prepaired postitions makes for good debate.

The idea of debate is not to find right and wrong.
It is to discover which individual or group is most clever and exersizes higher levels of fore-thought in building their case.
Thats the fun in it.

[Heartless Angel]

At the very least, you seem to be assuming that:
1. The definition you gave, not the OP, is utterly infallible.

Not at all, it's the first one I looked at, I made my argument from it. I did not arbitrarily choose a position and seek ways of making it work by finding the definition that suited my position best.

2. Your definition posits the existence of both a creator and an intention.

Unless random blocks of metal spontaneously become cut into specific shapes, one would have to assume there is a creator. It's a hell of a lot bigger stretch to assume anything else. The intended purpose is, as I've pointed out numerous times, right there in the definition.

3. We are arguing within a vacuum, where only the definition and object (if even that) need to be commented on.

When that's all the question is about, that IS all that need be commented on.

4. The intention implied by the definition exists at any time after its inception (even in places where it is not known), thereby validating your argument at virtually any given time.

No. I have in fact specifically stated that the intention exists only during the creation, however it is at that time that the object becomes a key. It is precisely because the intention happens only once in one point in history which then becomes unchangeable, that it can't be changed at a later time to make the key something other than a key.

5. The definition and the object can sustain their existence even if other components mentioned in the definition do not exist. (e.g. the creator nor a lock need not exist)

Once again you either misinterpreted misread or completely ignored part of my argument. My very first post in the thread stated that for it to be a key, it DID have to have someone to create it strictly for the purpose of opening a lock that did at that time exist, what I said didn't matter is whether that creator and that lock existed at a later time, after the object was created and made a key.

I didn't agree to that definition, and my first reply was to the OP, which never had such a definition. Rowan even defined it himself. And why would I agree to your definition anyway? Just like my questions favor me, your definition favors your stance, in that your stance is built around that particular definition. We're both very well aware of that, just how we're both very much aware that this is a definition you arbitrarily picked up from dictionary.com.

Even if I took your definition seriously from the start (I hadn't even read it through and through when I made my first post, since Rowan's post had induced a fiery lust in me to post immediately), I didn't agree to analyze it and nothing else. If you think I did, I'm not sure why. We both know there wouldn't be room for discussion, debate, argument, or even me ranting if I did. Accepting it would have defeated the purpose of the thread.

Questions are asked to be answered (unless it's a rhetorical question of course, but those aren't debated). Philosophy is not a game, the objective is to provide an acceptable answer to the question.

That said, I think it's better for both of us that you not change your definition. Your argument would change, and then I'll have wasted all that time trying to get you to stop with the intention stuff. =P But just to make clear:

Well, just for fun...

A small piece of shaped metal, with incisions cut to fit the wards of a particular lock, that is inserted into a lock and turned to open...

This definition also emphasizes intent with the segment 'cut to fit'. The way the latter part of the definition is worded is problematic. That seems to say it is not a key unless it is currently opening a lock. If that is the case, then this definition is not the one anybody I know uses. One can see why simply by examining a question we've probably all heard before, "Where are my keys?" Following that definition to the letter, if it isn't currently in the lock opening it, you don't have any keys. So clearly that isn't what the word is generally used to mean. Now if it said it were cut to be able to be inserted into a lock and open it, this problem would no longer exist. Of course my argument could just easily follow from that modified version of this definition.

a : a usually metal instrument by which the bolt of a lock is turned

According to this definition, a lock pick is also a key. Then why don't Elder scrolls games say key used when I pick a lock? If Skyrim doesn't like this definition, than neither do I damnit! In all seriousness, this definition is very vague, and allows for alot of things to meet the definition which nobody would consider a key, so once again, I have to deduce that this is not what people mean when they use the word key.

The third you listed combines the flaws of the first two, and the next is a definition of lock more than key.

Other definitions exist, and don't emphasize intention half as much. Why of all the ones...?

Because it's the one which best fits the way the word is actually used in normal conversation.

However, the real issue, bigger to me than anything else in this post, is this: your stance leading from your definition cited creates an exception for that one object alone. Other man-made objects may or may not gain their respective identities from the intention of the creator, but for a key it must absolutely be so. Why? How is this difference explained?

Even if we say your definition is absolutely right, it still relies on mechanism outside of itself. That is, intention. Why does intention treat a key differently from other things? Just because? It sounds odd.

In most cases this is true for things whose places can be taken by other implements. Key being an obvious case. Many objects can open a lock, a key is the object that was intended to. Many things can be used to kill zombies in video games, weapons are things that were meant for it. Intent is incorporated into the definitions of some things to differentiate between them, and other things which can be used in their place.

I'm not sure when we decided that this would be the route we would be taking, regardless of whether or not I disagree with it. You may ask, "what else is there?" I'm saying it'd be the one that keeps the discussion going, rather than the method attempts to swiftly finish it with your first post.

Unless one can prove absolutely their position in one post, it's never over that fast. When something is that easy to prove, its usually not something anyone needs to debate anyways.

My stance was merely in opposition to the OP's assertion. I wasn't expecting a debate over it, honestly. To prove it, I'd have to also prove why context determines identity and why words and their definitions are dependent upon humanity's use of the object tied to it. This, of course, falls very, very far outside the bounds of the thread. It's more effort than I'm willing to put forth, assuming that any amount of effort will actually be able to prove something like that.

But that's the whole point of a debate, to put forth a position and attempt to prove it. This means proving anything that isn't already accepted by the opposition until nobody is able to logically disagree with your premises any further.

Alternatively, I could define an intention as the thought that dictates the personal context of an action in the present. I could assume that the creator, at the moment he finalized the key with an action, intended for it to be able to function in a certain way from that moment on, so long as it remained in the form he committed the metal to (since if its form changed after, it would not longer be the object the creator made).

That's pretty much the definition I'm working with.

In his intention, it is assumed that he is trying to create a key. But his intention doesn't strictly follow your definition of a key. I really don't know if anyone would follow that pattern of logic. He (or I) would think, "Okay, after I put the finishing touches on this, it will be a key, an object that can open locks/a lock."

His thought would not follow your definition and be, "Okay, after I put the finishing touches on this, it will be a key, an object that is intended by its creator (me, of course, ho ho ho) to open a lock, but doesn't necessarily have to. Then it'd be a failed key, but a key nonetheless. Oh boy, I can't wait to finish my key, even if it doesn't work."

I'm not sure where you got that that was my definition of intention. You're confusing reality with intention. The intention was to make a key that WOULD function, one that he expected would. That in reality it is never used as intended does not change that he intended to created a key. The intent was all that mattered, this the object never lived up to his expectations does not go back in time and change his expectations.

People don't think like that. Instinctively, they think of keys as things that can successfully unlock a lock, not just objects that may or may not do so. I would say that unless he unlocks something with it, he can not confirm whether the object is a key or a malformed lump of scrap metal.

The operative word here isn't "successfully", it's "can". It is able to successfully open a lock whether it ever used to do so or not.

So let's say he opens the lock. Then later the lock disappears. Someone says that it's still a key. A key to what? What does it successfully unlock now?

It is the key to a lock that no longer exists. But it doesn't matter. It was cut to fit a lock which existed at the time it was cut, it was cut with the intention of creating an object capable of opening that lock. Having been created with that capability and that intention is what made it a key, not whether anyone ever used it. And that is all it required to be a key, what happens after the fact does not change it meeting those requirements.

Reiterating: it WAS a key, and unlocked a lock at one point. But now, with the lock gone, the object cannot successfully unlock anything. Then, it can't be a key.

Again, no part of the definition relies on that point. It relies only on created form and intended function. Intent is locked into one point in time, what happens outside of that point in time has absolutely no effect on that intent. The day the key was created, there was a lock. The locksmith created this key to open this lock. It meets the requirements to be a key. One hundred years from I can look at the same key. The lock has long since disappeared. Using this definition i need only ask one question. Was this instrument cut specifically to open that lock? Yes. It meets all of those same requirements without the lock one hundred years later. Whether I can use it as intended now is not relevant, whether it can be used at present time is not relevant, definition's criteria are all determined at the instant of creation. I have to go now, there's probably more for me to say yet, but it'll have to wait.

[Maridia]

I work with a stoner who finally ended up going to community college. His mind was blown when someone there asked him. "Can you sneak up on a lasagna?" This took several hours of debate back and forth at the store when he came in.

I'm not going to lay my answer but just remember it's better to have a key question than a lasagna question.

[Rowan]

I suppose in order to come to a more structured answer we must ask ourselves ,what defines an object? it's shape or purpose? In response to Sean, in my opinion, if a father loses his sons, he is no longer a father. He was a father and he maybe be a father again, but since there's no children to father, why must he be considered a father?

[Unknown Entity]

I suppose in order to come to a more structured answer we must ask ourselves ,what defines an object? it's shape or purpose?

Exactly. What good is a key without a lock? It has no purpose.

In response to Sean, in my opinion, if a father loses his sons, he is no longer a father. He was a father and he maybe be a father again, but since there's no children to father, why must he be considered a father?

I think this is more of a sensitive issue than a "shape or purpose" one. If you fathered a child who then died, would you rather be known as a dad still? You no longer father the "object" you're the father to, but the value and emotion is still there. Can you view a person as an object? Whilst I agree that technically speaking you can't be a father without a [living, breathing] child*, I can't.

*View open to be changed. First time I've considered the question. I probably won't be moved if my lack of understanding or emotions are attacked though.

[Rowan]

If we establish that it's no longer a key becaus it has no purpose, then what do we call it?

[Unknown Entity]

If we establish that it's no longer a key becaus it has no purpose, then what do we call it?

It could just be an object that looks like a key. Like I mentioned before, I have a necklace with a key-shaped pendant on it. Does that make my pendant a key?Nope. It's just decoration - an ornament or symbol, if you like. It doesn't unlock anything - it just looks nice.

I don't know how common they are in other countries, but do you see "Birthday Keys" in gift shops? You give them to people on their birthday to mark a certain, special age (16, 18, 21, 30, 40, 50, etc...). It has the personal value of being a key that unlocks that age or new beginning in someone, but let's face it: it's just a piece of decorated plastic that's shaped like a key, that you'll probably display with pride until you grow old enough to realise it's just junk.

[che]

This is the weirdest thread ever for ID. Basically you are all just trying to come up with a definition of the word "key". The object in question either is a key, or it isn't. Either way is insignificant, no matter what you settle on calling it.

[Rowan]

What we're trying to figure out is if an object is defined by its purpose byte what it was designed to do. The key is the object used as an example. The best part about this thread is that you have to think deep and argue in order to get your answers which are completely subjective and suspect to further critism.