Philosophy: Would you still consider a car an “automobile” if the engine and transmission were missing?
choclatmnm asked:
Someone posed this question to me, and I thought it was interesting. My position is that the engine and transmission are vital parts that make a car functional, and therefore it can’t be considered an automobile if it can’t move on its own. My opponents position is that it can still be considered an automobile if it has the potential to function on its own, once all the parts are included. What do you think?
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, April 21st, 2010 at 3:27 pm and is filed under Philosophy.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Someone posed this question to me, and I thought it was interesting. My position is that the engine and transmission are vital parts that make a car functional, and therefore it can’t be considered an automobile if it can’t move on its own. My opponents position is that it can still be considered an automobile if it has the potential to function on its own, once all the parts are included. What do you think?
April 24th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Yes.If I seen it parked on a street or parking lot,I would think there is an automobile. volcanicactive000111
April 25th, 2010 at 2:00 am
We call that a lawn decoration in my trailer park - It looks great next to the fridge with no doors, shelves or motor. Pretending To Work
April 26th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Yes it is still an automobile because that is what everyone has learned that it is. sedusa71
April 27th, 2010 at 6:03 am
I would agree with your opponent. It is still an automobile. An analogy: is a human still a human without a heart or brain? (Yes, it would be a corpse, but still human.) This is no different. thenchanted_one
April 30th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Auto - Automatic (via the self-cycling system of the engine and drivetrain).
Mobile - Movement (the result of the self-cycling system of the engine and the drivetrain).
An Automobile is the decription of the engine and the drivetrain functioning together in a self-contained system that moves the chassis on wheels.
A car is not an automobile without the engine and the drivetrain.
You are correct.
Your opponent didn’t really disagree with you but simply said an automobile is a car with an engine and a transmission.
A clever way of saying that you are right without admitting it. A. Qurius Muse
May 2nd, 2010 at 4:53 pm
It would be a disabled automobile. I think it is defined by the purpose it was made for, not weather it functions or not. It was made to be an automobile and that is what it is.
Is a tree with no leaves still a tree or is it just a big stick?
Would you still call a woman with a hysterectomy a woman? blazenphoenix
May 4th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
It can still be considered an automobile as long as the terminology were qualified, say “an incomplete automobile”. What else would you call it?
Here’s a related question for you: Would the removed engine be considered a part of the car, when it is not integrated into the car?
These are not black-&-white questions. Language is a practical enterprise, and the Automotobile Parts industry would be in a sorry state if we didn’t allow for the figurative use of the word “parts” for non-integrated former- or future- parts.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are qualifiers such as “literally” and “strictly speaking”. People should use such qualifiers more frequently, especially in political discourse; it might prevent a big part of the (metaphorical) horse crap being flung from both sides of the (metaphorical) fence. modest_proposer
May 5th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
it is interesting. not so much the question about the car itself, but the fact that in my opinion, qualifies as one of those questions we probably won’t have an answer for in this lifetime.
is a body without a soul, still a person? personally, i think there is a connection between science and philosphy and that one day, we will find ourselves plunk down in the middle of it all, understanding everything. i’m pretty sure it’s basis is in einstein’s theory of relativity. don’t mind me. in my world, they’d call it a car and it WOULD run without the innards. ridicur
May 7th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
As you start removing parts, at what point does it cease to be an automobile? In the same vein, if God is every where, is it still God if you don’t count yourself and where you are. woodman
May 10th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
I’d say that you are both right. There is just dfference in viewpoint and the way the question was understood…I will give you an example, if my question is: Will you still consider a person without a heart and a brain a person?
I can say that because the heart keeps a person alive, the person is already considered “dead” without it. One answer could be “no” because he does not have a “heart”. Without a heart there can be no heartbeat and without a heartbeat ithe person is “dead”. So, the question has to have a caption that says:”possibilities considered”. Then, we can say that, what if the person is in the operating room and there’s a possibility that the doctors will do a heart and a brain transplant, then it will have the potential to get a heart and a brain, therefore, possible to have a heartbeat and live and move and function like a normal person again….so you see the question should include possibilities. I am sure that if someone would ask you if the car is possible to function if they put a new engine or transmission, you would say “yes, it can still be considered an automobile if they do that and the mechanic succeed”.
Janaki enlightenment2121
May 10th, 2010 at 11:49 pm
I can ride my lawnmower and i dont consider it an automobile……My couch has the potential to function on its own and i dont consider this an automobile………..does your friend? Name
May 13th, 2010 at 11:27 am
I would dissect the term ‘automobile’
Since the word means automatically mobile, then there has never been any vehicle that fits the term in a literal sense. The car doesn’t move automatically, there are complex combustion processes that require fuel to turn the crank and eventually spin the wheels.
The same question would be valid when talking about a car that functions but has no fuel - is that an automobile?
No car is automatically mobile in this sense and thus are not automobiles.
Therefore, regardless of whether a car is in full working order or not, its not an automobile.
Yes, I understand its a semantic argument. On the other hand, the question is pointing to the nature and thus definition of a word. Justin
May 14th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
it’s a car, just not ‘fully’ a car, e..g, not a car that fully maximized the function of being a car. when you see it that’s how you will interact with it, e.g., you won’t interact with it as if it were an assortment of randomly placed objects, it will still ‘mean’ car to you. now if you start to take away other parts of it then sooner or later it is less ‘fully’ a car until it’s not a car. but it’s a gradual change rather than a harsh cutoff. Kos Kesh
May 16th, 2010 at 1:44 am
Yes. Definitely. A car was made for the sole purpose of making an automobile. Though the main parts are gone, it doesn’t give us a reason to call it a house or anything
This is in reference to Plato’s theory of existence.
The form ‘automobile’ wants to assume the matter of ‘car’
We then gather all the parts of the ‘automobile’ and since the idea wants to assume the matter of car we will put all the parts together and it will become automobile car.
Though there are substantial and necessary parts missing now, the automobile in the extension of a car,which was originally thought of as automobile and which formal form was ‘automobile’, remains considered an automobile.
Would you still call a a feetless penguin a mammal? Oh no, it can be an orca, a seal. But since the form of mammal wants to assume the matter of feetless penguin, the idea stays with it. An idea that requires doubtless considerations. kyala c