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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.