On the last weekend of term Bramina came to visit, and large parts of our conversation were dominated by the question -- is a fish in water wet?
Wet:
'Made moist or damp by dipping in, or sprinkling or smearing with, water or other liquid.'
Apparently a lot of people have considered this conundrum, and the related problem of defining what is wet (is water wet?)
I began by playing devil's advocate and offering the controversial position that no, a fish in water is not wet, against Bramina who staunchly believes a fish in water is wet - and then I became convinced of the position I'd been offering as a sort of joke. Alex, who was staying in my room as well, considered both sides and asked questions to probe both positions.
And when we brought the conversation to a pub, discussing it with Bramina's friend James who was in Cambridge as well, a man from the table beside us joined in, and then another man from the table behind us, and I could tell the four elderly people at the table on a diagonal from us had strong opinions on the subject but were choosing (perhaps wisely) not to get embroiled in the discussion.
A fish in water isn't wet - it is submerged in water but submersion is different from being wet. Being wet is a process of making or becoming, and a state of relative difference. You become wet, and can only be wet if you were previously dry. Wet exists only because of dry, and is a juxtaposition of dry and not-dry. So, when a fish is removed from water, that fish with water on it out of water is wet. However, when it was absolutely submerged it is not. (was my basic argument)
Hence - me going into the shower is me getting wet, because as I stand in the shower parts of my body remain touching air, juxtaposing themselves with the parts of my body which are under streams of warm water.
Me jumping into a pool is me getting wet - but the process of getting wet only completes itself when I emerge from under the water. When I am fully submerged I am not wet, when I break the surface the parts of me exposed to air are, having been made wet by falling in water, and when I climb out of the water completely I am wet from my head to my toes.
I began by playing devil's advocate and offering the controversial position that no, a fish in water is not wet, against Bramina who staunchly believes a fish in water is wet - and then I became convinced of the position I'd been offering as a sort of joke. Alex, who was staying in my room as well, considered both sides and asked questions to probe both positions.
And when we brought the conversation to a pub, discussing it with Bramina's friend James who was in Cambridge as well, a man from the table beside us joined in, and then another man from the table behind us, and I could tell the four elderly people at the table on a diagonal from us had strong opinions on the subject but were choosing (perhaps wisely) not to get embroiled in the discussion.
A fish in water isn't wet - it is submerged in water but submersion is different from being wet. Being wet is a process of making or becoming, and a state of relative difference. You become wet, and can only be wet if you were previously dry. Wet exists only because of dry, and is a juxtaposition of dry and not-dry. So, when a fish is removed from water, that fish with water on it out of water is wet. However, when it was absolutely submerged it is not. (was my basic argument)
Hence - me going into the shower is me getting wet, because as I stand in the shower parts of my body remain touching air, juxtaposing themselves with the parts of my body which are under streams of warm water.
Me jumping into a pool is me getting wet - but the process of getting wet only completes itself when I emerge from under the water. When I am fully submerged I am not wet, when I break the surface the parts of me exposed to air are, having been made wet by falling in water, and when I climb out of the water completely I am wet from my head to my toes.
No comments:
Post a Comment