I think ‘wet’ is only useful in the context of describing something which is otherwise dry - paint, matches, and so on. So the fact that fishes are immersed in water renders the description ‘wet’ redundant.
Yes, but only on the inside.
-------
Now that I’ve read Wayfarer’s post, come to think of it, you could have a dry fish in water … I’m thinking along the lines of smoked salmon. Which only further substantiates my position.
Do you become less wet or wetter when you jump into a swimming pool? How about when you climb out (considering that water falls from you onto your surroundings)? Is there any reason things should be different for a fish?
If I step in a puddle, am I wet? If I wash my hands, am I wet? If I stand in the bath, am i wet? As I lower myself into the water, at what specific point do I become wet?
Reply to Posty McPostface Well, with a tad more seriousness, “wet” can only hold meaning via “not-wet/dry”. So I agree with what Wayfarer said. Since fish live and die in water without ever (typically) being not-wet (not all fish jump out of water), it wouldn’t make sense to say that a fish in water is wet … unless you conceptualize the fish out of water as well.
In that case the part of you that stepped in the puddle would be wet (if exposed). The rest not necessarily so. And if the rest of you were dry whether you say you are as a whole wet or not is a matter of taste. You both are and you are not unlike a fish fully submerged in water, which most definitely is.
Describing a fish in water as wet is superfluous (unless the bugger is wrapped up) but not any less accurate then describing a lizard in the desert as dry. It's superfluous because it's impossible not to be wet when fully submersed in and in direct contact with water, but not impossible not to be dry when on land.
Not necessarily in an informal language. If we want to remove the ambiguity then formalizing the property of being wet would seem of use or economy of speech.
A fish does not (as far as I know) repel water, so when it is in the water it is wet. It is also wet when it comes out of the water to sun itself in the bottom of your boat. Sunning fish frequently spritz themselves with moisturizing lotion. Many fish coat themselves in slippery fishsnot while in the water. It makes it more difficult for sexual predators to grope them.
Can something in water remain dry? If the surface of an object repeals water, it would not get wet in water. The surface of oil droplets or a whole can of oil can be in water, and not be wet. You won't get wet if you go into a greasy spoon, unless the waitress throws hot coffee in your face for uttering subtle sexual innuendo.
OK, with this part, unless we’re talking about sexuality in code and are refereeing to the female sex, I don’t yet know what you here mean. (maybe not important)
Presumably then it is possible that a fish in water is soaking, while one in the hand is merely moist?
Well, what I’m upholding is that the fish isn’t soaking unless it then steps out of the water somehow—this so as to compare soaking wet with being merely moist (maybe due to perspiration after drying off).
To soak something is to immerse it in water or to make it extremely wet. The fish is literally soaking in water when it is in the water.
There are degrees of wetness, certainly.
Plants, animals, and insects are always somewhat wet. Were they to be completely dehydrated, they would be dead; brittle; rigid; hard; some of the above or all of the above, depending. Fish may spend decades in the water and not be any wetter on the last day of their drab wretched lives than they were on the first day. Fish and animals are equally wet on the inside. Only the surface wetness varies.
Being in contact with water is not the same as being "wet". Many plastics repel water, so a water-repelling plastic bottle is not wet on the inside, even though it is full of water.
Reply to Banno Will immersion in quantum mechanics be wet or dry?
Does "wetness" refer only to liquid water? Suppose one has a bottle of 100% isopropyl alcohol. It looks like water, behaves like water, but it isn't water. If you spill it on yourself, is your shirt wet?
"Moisten a surgical sponge with isopropyl alcohol and clean the skin before the injection" is a sensible statement. But no water is involved in the moistness or wetness.
If it were just our clothes, we would say "my clothes are soaked" not "I am soaked". If only some of our clothes were soaked and for some reason we escaped the soaking, we would not say we were soaked. To be soaked we must be wet.
Suppose one has a bottle of 100% isopropyl alcohol. It looks like water, behaves like water, but it isn't water.
Now, by my argument, a fish immersed in rubbing alcohol (or beer) would then be soaking wet in whatever you’ve immersed it in. Cuz, then it would be surrounded by something different than what in normal circumstances remains a permanent context. No?
The fish is wet but we don't need to say so. It's bloody obvious. That's the solution.
Seems good to me.
So, what's the issue with language that produces such befuddled statements, as I'm keenly interested in this state of affairs that could arise in other domains of language and conceptualization?
To soak something is to immerse it in water or to make it extremely wet. The fish is literally soaking in water when it is in the water.
What is extremely wet? How do you determine how wet you are? A fish never gets more wet unless it dies and disintegrates in the water -- then it would take on more water and be diluted.
None the less, 99.9% of the time, we can judge by context and familiarity with the imprecision of language what other people mean.
What is extremely wet? How do you determine how wet you are? A fish never gets more wet unless it dies and disintegrates in the water -- then it would take on more water and be diluted.
Then we would be talking about disembodied fish parts not a fish. ;)
So, what's the issue with language that produces such befuddled statements, as I'm keenly interested in this state of affairs that could arise in other domains of language and conceptualization?
Many words have multiple meanings, depending on usage. That's one part of the problem. Another part is that many words do not have precise meanings--like "wet". "The grass is too wet to mow." Well, it isn't really all that wet. "My clothes are wet." Not a problem if they are in the washing machine, but if you are about to go into a job interview, then at least their wetness is very awkward--and uncomfortable.
Wet, dry, soaking, moisture, saturated, immersion, etc. all have multiple usages. Were we required to conduct this discussion in French (which perhaps we do not know well -- certainly true for me -- the multiple meanings and imprecisions would be really problematic. In any native language, anyone can negotiate these problems -- UNLESS they make an issue of multiple meanings and imprecision -- which happens a lot in these kinds of discussions. "What exactly do you mean by "wet"? Does "wetness" admit to gradation? Can something be "wetted" by a liquid that is not water (like isopropyl alcohol)? and so on.
You are always in the air (except when you are under water) and you can probably distinguish between various qualities of air: smelly air, dry air, cold air, moist air, fresh air, hot air (lots of that going around lately) wind, stillness, rawness, and so on. So, probably a fish can distinguish between qualities in water too--though, water is always wet, just as air is always a gas, and we don't usually make a big deal of the gaseous nature of air.
Reply to Bitter Crank I wasn’t expecting a serious reply. Maybe I should have been more serious myself, and likely should have first replied directly to Baden. To go back to what Baden’s reply to me was:
To soak something is to immerse it in water or to make it extremely wet. The fish is literally soaking in water when it is in the water.
I get what Baden is here saying; that “immersion in water”, or “being made extremely wet”, signifies that something is soaked--that something is soaking wet. Yet, by what Baden expresses verbatim, this entails that the thing addressed was immersed in the given liquid from a former state of not being so immersed, and was made wet--this in comparison to a state of non-wetness prior to being so made wet.
So, being serious about the matter: that a natural, living fish in some lake or ocean (etc.), which was birthed there and died there without any alteration to its context of water, was "soaking wet" to me strongly implies that at some point it was not. But this conclusion would be erroneous. It always was in the same state of being surrounded by water.
Were such a fish, however, to be taken out of its natural context, say by fishing, and then immersed into some other liquid, because this this other liquid would be a novel and impermanent context, the fish would then be “immersed” or “made wet” with this novel liquid. So, the fish now could be said to be soaking wet in the liquid because it was so made to be from a former state of not being so. E.g.:
“All fish are soaking wet in water”, doesn’t sound right to me (though I grant that English is my second language, I've never quite heard this term outside of this philosophy form, and I'm guessing the same applies for most).
“That living fish over there is soaking wet in ketchup”, though a bit sadistic, does to me seem cogent as a statement.
… but this is not an overall argument I have big stakes in.
But even if we were to accept this "novel" definitional constraint, the fish prior to being birthed was not immersed in sea water but in some internal fluid of its parent. (And obviously this idea holds whether we consider the fish egg to be the fish or a (sub)container of it).
(Accepting it would anyway have the odd result of allowing a caught and thrown-back fish to be called "wet" in opposition to its uncaptured comrades. Too inegalitarian for me.)
Reply to Baden Yea, I see your point. And then it would be hatched into the wetness. Still, wouldn’t it as embryo still be wet given the fluid it’s surrounded by? (Same with the sperm and egg prior to the embryo being developed.)
Is it reasonable to pull the rug upon which we stand?
Regarding isomorphism, I don't really have a grasp on what that is. It would be as if to say that language is an attempt at describing reality, yet at the same time stating that it really doesn't, and saying that it doesn't is senseless (or nonsensical). So, there you have it, a paradox, no?
It's the same thing with language games and family resemblances. I can see that they are similar; but, trying to say that they are is nonsensical. Again, a sort of paradox.
Reply to Posty McPostface ????????????? got the gist of my comment, and it's a standard interpretation of Wittgenstein.
[quote=Wittgenstein, PI 38]For philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday.[/quote]
That's pretty much what I meant. To ask "is a fish wet in water" is to use language without a proper appreciation or understanding of language, i.e., without a sensitivity to context, and so on.
EDIT: By the way, I'm not sure if I want to entirely endorse the strong interpretation of this view, namely that all philosophical problems are mere linguistic confusions.
Reply to Posty McPostface On the other hand, if I was soaked by rain and I said I was as wet as a fish, you would know what I meant. It's not nonsense. The primary problem then--the way that language has gone on holiday--might be to look for a definitive answer, which is to give in to the pull of the thought of wetness.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 11, 2017 at 13:08#1325670 likes
Comments (84)
What we needs must do is work out the consequences of both approaches, and decide which grammar better suits our porpoise.
Yes, but only on the inside.
-------
Now that I’ve read Wayfarer’s post, come to think of it, you could have a dry fish in water … I’m thinking along the lines of smoked salmon. Which only further substantiates my position.
Hence "wet liberal".
Do you become less wet or wetter when you jump into a swimming pool? How about when you climb out (considering that water falls from you onto your surroundings)? Is there any reason things should be different for a fish?
If I step in a puddle, am I wet? If I wash my hands, am I wet? If I stand in the bath, am i wet? As I lower myself into the water, at what specific point do I become wet?
Yes, hence phrases like "soaking wet".
Quoting Banno
In that case the part of you that stepped in the puddle would be wet (if exposed). The rest not necessarily so. And if the rest of you were dry whether you say you are as a whole wet or not is a matter of taste. You both are and you are not unlike a fish fully submerged in water, which most definitely is.
Quoting Banno
See above.
No, it genuinely seems like a fallacy of composition...
made apparent by ambiguity of the property of being 'wet'.
SO we must rout out the ambiguity?
Words are useless if ambiguous?
Is moist less wet than soaking? It seems so. Presumably then it is possible that a fish in water is soaking, while one in the hand is merely moist?
Not necessarily in an informal language. If we want to remove the ambiguity then formalizing the property of being wet would seem of use or economy of speech.
Can something in water remain dry? If the surface of an object repeals water, it would not get wet in water. The surface of oil droplets or a whole can of oil can be in water, and not be wet. You won't get wet if you go into a greasy spoon, unless the waitress throws hot coffee in your face for uttering subtle sexual innuendo.
I say fish are all wet, unless they are not.
OK, with this part, unless we’re talking about sexuality in code and are refereeing to the female sex, I don’t yet know what you here mean. (maybe not important)
Quoting Banno
Well, what I’m upholding is that the fish isn’t soaking unless it then steps out of the water somehow—this so as to compare soaking wet with being merely moist (maybe due to perspiration after drying off).
They are quite moist if they are washed up. At least for a few minutes...
To soak something is to immerse it in water or to make it extremely wet. The fish is literally soaking in water when it is in the water.
‘soak the beans overnight in water’
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/soak
So, a qualifier was needed for the ambiguous quality or property of being 'wet'?
If the fish is soaking (wet), it's also wet. There is nothing ambiguous in this case.
There are degrees of wetness, certainly.
Plants, animals, and insects are always somewhat wet. Were they to be completely dehydrated, they would be dead; brittle; rigid; hard; some of the above or all of the above, depending. Fish may spend decades in the water and not be any wetter on the last day of their drab wretched lives than they were on the first day. Fish and animals are equally wet on the inside. Only the surface wetness varies.
Being in contact with water is not the same as being "wet". Many plastics repel water, so a water-repelling plastic bottle is not wet on the inside, even though it is full of water.
Sure, but this is all that we refer to when we speak of being "wet". It does not mean the same as hydrated.
Covered (not infused with).
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/wet
A dry fish.
"Dried" not "dry".
No. You can be soaked by rain without it penetrating your surface. See definition above.
What water repellent object did you have in mind?
(EDIT: Sorry, didn't see your edit until now).
So we must look at the polarity of the molecules of the fish... If we go down that path, we are going to be immersed in quantum mechanics.
But are you soaked, or is it just your cloths?
And what are we to make of saturated?
Perhaps there is no solution, no?
Does "wetness" refer only to liquid water? Suppose one has a bottle of 100% isopropyl alcohol. It looks like water, behaves like water, but it isn't water. If you spill it on yourself, is your shirt wet?
"Moisten a surgical sponge with isopropyl alcohol and clean the skin before the injection" is a sensible statement. But no water is involved in the moistness or wetness.
If it were just our clothes, we would say "my clothes are soaked" not "I am soaked". If only some of our clothes were soaked and for some reason we escaped the soaking, we would not say we were soaked. To be soaked we must be wet.
"Extremely wet; saturated." (Two meanings).
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/soaked
Beer may be though. Especially in a conversation like this.
The fish is wet but we don't need to say so. It's bloody obvious. That's the solution.
Apparently; acidy fats.
So to be saturated is not to be able to take any more.
How you going, @Posty McPostface? More?
Now, by my argument, a fish immersed in rubbing alcohol (or beer) would then be soaking wet in whatever you’ve immersed it in. Cuz, then it would be surrounded by something different than what in normal circumstances remains a permanent context. No?
Seems good to me.
So, what's the issue with language that produces such befuddled statements, as I'm keenly interested in this state of affairs that could arise in other domains of language and conceptualization?
See the previous comment.
Why has language bewitched us here?
What is extremely wet? How do you determine how wet you are? A fish never gets more wet unless it dies and disintegrates in the water -- then it would take on more water and be diluted.
None the less, 99.9% of the time, we can judge by context and familiarity with the imprecision of language what other people mean.
It's a "hidden in full view" thing I guess.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Then we would be talking about disembodied fish parts not a fish. ;)
So the issue here is that we have not decided on a porpoise for this thread.
So, nonsense seems to be the issue here.
As in, asking the fish how does the water feel?
EDIT: I think I just Banno'd the Banno.
Wish you wouldn't carp on about that.
Many words have multiple meanings, depending on usage. That's one part of the problem. Another part is that many words do not have precise meanings--like "wet". "The grass is too wet to mow." Well, it isn't really all that wet. "My clothes are wet." Not a problem if they are in the washing machine, but if you are about to go into a job interview, then at least their wetness is very awkward--and uncomfortable.
Wet, dry, soaking, moisture, saturated, immersion, etc. all have multiple usages. Were we required to conduct this discussion in French (which perhaps we do not know well -- certainly true for me -- the multiple meanings and imprecisions would be really problematic. In any native language, anyone can negotiate these problems -- UNLESS they make an issue of multiple meanings and imprecision -- which happens a lot in these kinds of discussions. "What exactly do you mean by "wet"? Does "wetness" admit to gradation? Can something be "wetted" by a liquid that is not water (like isopropyl alcohol)? and so on.
You are always in the air (except when you are under water) and you can probably distinguish between various qualities of air: smelly air, dry air, cold air, moist air, fresh air, hot air (lots of that going around lately) wind, stillness, rawness, and so on. So, probably a fish can distinguish between qualities in water too--though, water is always wet, just as air is always a gas, and we don't usually make a big deal of the gaseous nature of air.
what are the various domains of language?...
https://theconversation.com/answering-the-question-that-won-me-the-ig-nobel-prize-are-cats-liquid-86589
If cats are a form of liquid, then when a cat sits on you, you are wet.
Quoting Baden
I get what Baden is here saying; that “immersion in water”, or “being made extremely wet”, signifies that something is soaked--that something is soaking wet. Yet, by what Baden expresses verbatim, this entails that the thing addressed was immersed in the given liquid from a former state of not being so immersed, and was made wet--this in comparison to a state of non-wetness prior to being so made wet.
So, being serious about the matter: that a natural, living fish in some lake or ocean (etc.), which was birthed there and died there without any alteration to its context of water, was "soaking wet" to me strongly implies that at some point it was not. But this conclusion would be erroneous. It always was in the same state of being surrounded by water.
Were such a fish, however, to be taken out of its natural context, say by fishing, and then immersed into some other liquid, because this this other liquid would be a novel and impermanent context, the fish would then be “immersed” or “made wet” with this novel liquid. So, the fish now could be said to be soaking wet in the liquid because it was so made to be from a former state of not being so. E.g.:
“All fish are soaking wet in water”, doesn’t sound right to me (though I grant that English is my second language, I've never quite heard this term outside of this philosophy form, and I'm guessing the same applies for most).
“That living fish over there is soaking wet in ketchup”, though a bit sadistic, does to me seem cogent as a statement.
… but this is not an overall argument I have big stakes in.
But even if we were to accept this "novel" definitional constraint, the fish prior to being birthed was not immersed in sea water but in some internal fluid of its parent. (And obviously this idea holds whether we consider the fish egg to be the fish or a (sub)container of it).
Or maybe we have failed language, just by asking the question.
... but I'm OK with either way, to be honest
Spoilsport. Go on back to the Shoutbox. See how you like it there. :p
3.03 Thought can never be of anything illogical, since, if it were, we should have to think illogically.
Wittgenstein, TLP
It's only when we treat it as if something that has meaningful content, that nonsense arises, no?
I'm not sure.
Quoting ?????????????
How can one fail language? I don't understand that concept. Hence proposition 7 in the TLP?
Isomorphic? Redundant? I don't entirely know.
Is it reasonable to pull the rug upon which we stand?
Regarding isomorphism, I don't really have a grasp on what that is. It would be as if to say that language is an attempt at describing reality, yet at the same time stating that it really doesn't, and saying that it doesn't is senseless (or nonsensical). So, there you have it, a paradox, no?
It's the same thing with language games and family resemblances. I can see that they are similar; but, trying to say that they are is nonsensical. Again, a sort of paradox.
Not getting your drift. Enlighten me, as I seem unenlightened on the matter.
[quote=Wittgenstein, PI 38]For philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday.[/quote]
That's pretty much what I meant. To ask "is a fish wet in water" is to use language without a proper appreciation or understanding of language, i.e., without a sensitivity to context, and so on.
EDIT: By the way, I'm not sure if I want to entirely endorse the strong interpretation of this view, namely that all philosophical problems are mere linguistic confusions.
Yes, so a wet fish is a senseless proposition, almost a trite tautological truism, and thinking it has meaning is nonsense. Is that right?
I suspect there's something fishy going on here.
Quoting Banno
I don't know about you, but I'm supersaturated with QM.