The point of the square circle question, as you well know, was to simply illustrate the intrinsic qualities that define an entity. If a square did not have ‘square
ness’ why would we call it a square. If God were to change His Law’s the ‘Perfect
ness’ or ‘Just
ness’ or other intrinsic qualities (depending on the change) would not apply.
Now theoretically, in a freethinking sense, it would be possible for God to wipe out everything and redefine Himself. But then again, in a freethinking sense, maybe He already did, maybe He is doing it now., maybe everything is an illusion and – well who cares… Yippee!
Is it possible to be so open minded that you mind has become closed? Is it possible to be non-committal to the point of commitment? Are the intrinsic qualities of a free thinker ‘squareness and ‘obtuseness’. Yes, in a freethinking sense ; )
If a square did not have ?squareness? why would we call it a square. Because the relationship between a thing and what we call that thing is arbitrary. We could have as easily called three-sided figures "squares" and round figures "triangles" and four-sided figures "circles". And no matter what we called them, the things themselves would not change.
But then again, in a freethinking sense, maybe He already did, maybe He is doing it now., maybe everything is an illusion and...
Maybe. Can't really prove otherwise, can you? ;)
? well who cares? Yippee!
Well, I have a vested interest, since here I am.
Is it possible to be so open minded that you mind has become closed? Is it possible to be non-committal to the point of commitment?
Is it possible to be circular to the point of squareness?
I have given this idea of the square circle some thought. And I have come up with two possibilities. Here's the first one:
I like this one. It has (at least) four sides, Each of the four "major" sides is parallel to another of the major sides, and perpendicular to the other two, and all are of equal length. Hence, it is a square. However, by virtue of the fact that it has curved regions, it actually has an infinite number of "minor" sides, and an infinite number of tangents. Hence, it is a circle.
That was my first idea. Then I hit on this one:
The point of the square circle question, as you well know, was to simply illustrate the intrinsic qualities that define an entity. But I assert it is trivial to specify a square that is perfectly circular and is yet still a square.
Doesn't that undo your illustration?
You do concur it is possible to specify a square that is perfectly circular and is yet still a square, don't you?