Is water wet?

GKC · **Joined:** Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:22 pm **Posts:** 13059

DesertSailor wrote:

GKC wrote:

Calvinist wrote:

Chris G wrote:

pax wrote:

Actually, the real question here is: Can God make dry water?

Yes He can. And He can make so much of it that even He can't lift it up.

No....he really can't. God can't violate his nature. By nature he is omnipotent. So he acts within his nature.

But inquiring minds want to know.....how many angels really CAN dance on the head of a needle?

By the School solution, all of them.

GKC

St. Thomas Aquinas said only one angel can.

I know. I have seen another answer, not Thomistic in origin. Either way, the answer depends on a correct understanding of the angelic nature. And the question was a didactic device.

GKC

Doom · **Posted:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:37 am

I don't think St. Thomas could have given any answer to the question because I think the question post-dated him

GKC · **Joined:** Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:22 pm **Posts:** 13059

Doom wrote:

I don't think St. Thomas could have given any answer to the question because I think the question post-dated him

I thought gherkin's reply was based on St. T.

GKC

gherkin · **Posted:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:17 pm

My reply was indeed based on St. Thomas, but it was not an account of St. Thomas's own answer to that specific question, since that question was never posed (as far as we know) until the 17th century.

GKC · **Joined:** Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:22 pm **Posts:** 13059

gherkin wrote:

My reply was indeed based on St. Thomas, but it was not an account of St. Thomas's own answer to that specific question, since that question was never posed (as far as we know) until the 17th century.

I love learning stuff.

GKC

Added: Ok, I went back to the first place I ever saw the origin discussed: Lunn's REVOLT AGAINST REASON.

Was the 17th century origin in a book titled RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS, by William Chiilingworth?

Chris G · **Posted:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:15 pm

GKC wrote:

I love learning stuff.

Not me. I found that the more I learn, the more I find out that I don't know. So what's the point?

gherkin · **Posted:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:23 pm

GKC wrote:

gherkin wrote:

My reply was indeed based on St. Thomas, but it was not an account of St. Thomas's own answer to that specific question, since that question was never posed (as far as we know) until the 17th century.

I love learning stuff.

GKC

Added: Ok, I went back to the first place I ever saw the origin discussed: Lunn's REVOLT AGAINST REASON.

Was the 17th century origin in a book titled RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS, by William Chiilingworth?

Yes, that's the place I had in mind, though I admit to not having done an exhastive study of the matter. I also noticed yesterday when I ran a quick fact-check on myself that there's some very loose talk about a line from a heretical 14th century mystical text that may be traceable to an errant disciple of Eckhart. I was not impressed with the story as it appeared in the online sources, especially since nobody seemed to even agree on what the exact content of the line was. (Some said it was about angels, some said it was about human souls. None gave the Latin. None refereed, IIRC, to any reliable scholarship on the manuscript at all.) I prefer to stick with the 17th century in the absence of better evidence. But even if I'm wrong, we're still far post-Aquinas.

Gracie2004 · **Posted:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:17 pm

Water is only wet until it is dehydrated

pax · **Posted:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:19 pm

Chris G wrote:

GKC wrote:

I love learning stuff.

Not me. I found that the more I learn, the more I find out that I don't know. So what's the point?

The point is to fathom your ignorance to its uttermost depths :fyi:

GKC · **Joined:** Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:22 pm **Posts:** 13059

Chris G wrote:

GKC wrote:

I love learning stuff.

Not me. I found that the more I learn, the more I find out that I don't know. So what's the point?

I cherish that bit I've learned.

Then I use it to be a pain in the neck.

GKC

Chris G · **Posted:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:43 pm

pax wrote:

Chris G wrote:

GKC wrote:

I love learning stuff.

Not me. I found that the more I learn, the more I find out that I don't know. So what's the point?

The point is to fathom your ignorance to its uttermost depths :fyi:

So.... the more I learn about what it is I don't know the more knowledgeable I become since I now know more than I did before about what I don't know?

TheJack · **Posted:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:18 pm

Chris G wrote:

So.... the more I learn about what it is I don't know the more knowledgeable I become since I now know more than I did before about what I don't know?

Socrates could scarcely have said it better. :wink:

On a semi serious note, I have always been fond of this cute little saying:

There are four kinds of men: the man who knows and knows he knows, the man who knows and knows not he knows, the man who knows not and knows he knows not, and the man who knows not and knows not he knows not.

The question is, which are you?

(This paradigm, of course, cannot be applied to women, for all the obvious reasons.)

Light of the East · **Posted:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:22 pm

jac3510 wrote:

Chris G wrote:

So.... the more I learn about what it is I don't know the more knowledgeable I become since I now know more than I did before about what I don't know?

Socrates could scarcely have said it better. :wink:

On a semi serious note, I have always been fond of this cute little saying:

There are four kinds of men: the man who knows and knows he knows, the man who knows and knows not he knows, the man who knows not and knows he knows not, and the man who knows not and knows not he knows not.

The question is, which are you?

(This paradigm, of course, cannot be applied to women, for all the obvious reasons.)

The greatest problem we face in the world is that the first group is far too rare and the last group is as common as flies on dung. And the last group alwasy fancy themselves the wisest in the land and consider the first group to be fools because they don't agree with their folly.

pax · **Posted:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:25 pm

jac3510 wrote:

Chris G wrote:

So.... the more I learn about what it is I don't know the more knowledgeable I become since I now know more than I did before about what I don't know?

Socrates could scarcely have said it better. :wink:

On a semi serious note, I have always been fond of this cute little saying:

There are four kinds of men: the man who knows and knows he knows, the man who knows and knows not he knows, the man who knows not and knows he knows not, and the man who knows not and knows not he knows not.

The question is, which are you?

(This paradigm, of course, cannot be applied to women, for all the obvious reasons.)

Because............even if women do not know anything............they still.............know more than men!

metal1633 · **Posted:** Thu Mar 01, 2012 2:32 pm

Calvinist wrote:

I was wondering how many would just outright disagree with me when I said it was wet. I like the direction this has taken...kind of interesting.

Ok I am going to bite.

Water is not wet. Water is water. BUT...Water has "wettness" as a quality.

Closet Catholic · **Posted:** Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:01 pm

Can water become wet?

Cyprian · **Posted:** Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:29 pm

Quote:

Can water become wet?

Only if you pour water on it.

Learner · **Posted:** Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:35 pm

jac3510 wrote:

There are four kinds of men:

the man who knows and knows he knows, the Senior

the man who knows and knows not he knows, the Junior

the man who knows not and knows he knows not, and the Sophomore

the man who knows not and knows not he knows not. the Freshman

DesertSailor · **Posted:** Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:37 pm

H2O isn't wet if you remove the O.

Mithrandir · **Posted:** Sun Apr 08, 2012 11:16 pm

pax wrote:

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

With respect to the original question, I answer that:

The wetness of water depends on how we define the word wet. Wiktionary offers two relevant definitions of wet. The first is: "Of an object, etc, covered with or impregnated with liquid." By this definition, water itself is not wet formally but only eminently--that is to say, it has the power to cause wetness without itself being wet. The second definition is: "Made up of liquid or moisture." By this definition, water is wet. But even by this second definition, the wetness that water imparts to something else is wetness only by analogy, not univocally.

Seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish. :fyi:

"And," laughed Frodo, "it is also said: Go not to the Jedi for counsel for they will say both yes and no."

Did George Lucas somehow edit the Redbook of Westmarch? I'm almost certain that he violated Mr. Frodo's intellectual property rights.

Is water wet?

Who is online