Keith Douglas
Last month, I asked about a bizarre argument that talks about its own validity and soundness. This creates, to speak sloppily, a paradoxical situation (i.e., one can derive a contradiction).
Some think that one can then say: “Paradoxical, not an argument, moving on.” This is too quick, and falls afoul of one attempted resolution of the so-called “liar paradox” of which the puzzle is a cousin. Consider: “This statement is not part of an argument; therefore, this statement is not part of an argument.” This looks valid (A therefore A). So it is part of an argument (it has the property of validity) and yet that’s what it denies. The problem is the “not.”
Similarly with the liar paradox: “This statement is not true” is an example of the so-called “revenge liar.” After all, if one thinks one can escape the problem with “This statement is false” by adopting a truth-value gap, one might be tempted to say that something can be not true without being false. Yet, if a statement is not true, and it says that it is not true, doesn’t that make it true? Or is this still a gap? “This statement is gappy.” Uh-oh.
Returning to the original problem, we can apply all the same ideas. The lesson, if you want to put it that way, is that resolutions of logical paradoxes are not simple.
In fact, recently we saw a whole new edited collection on the liar paradox, despite it being debated for centuries. Onto the next conundrum.
What Constitutes a Burger?
This time, we have another metaphysics puzzle. Consider a burger. Any burger will do. In fact, if you’re wondering about hamburgers vs. veggie burgers vs. turkey burgers, etc., that’s part of the point we are about to investigate. In particular, I request that you ponder: Is there an essential property of burgers?
There are legally essential properties of some foods in some places. Do those have a metaphysical basis? Could they?
The standard understanding of an essential property is a property that two or more items must have in common to be of the same kind. I will not discuss what notion of “kind” you are to use to understand this; that’s part of the matter to think through. Some philosophers also think individuals have essential properties — i.e., properties without which an individual would not be the same individual even if they are still of the same kind.
There is a debate here, but some people read Jean-Paul Sartre as denying this thesis. What do you think?
One of the essential properties of a burger might be that it is edible by humans. But that is a physical attribute, not a meta-physical one. Could it be that a given burger must have the prospective eater’s perception that it is edible to qualify as an essential attribute?
A burger, by convention, is a patty of ground meat, or a vegetable product processed to have a similar texture, together with a containing bun (which is a bread product with crust all round, as opposed to sliced from a loaf, which would make it a mere sandwich). I don’t think there is any deeper essence than common agreement that that sort of thing is what is meant by the term.
I’m setting aside usages such as “hamburger” referring to the raw ground meat that the cook started with.