Three prevalent themes in the discussion
-
Ontological nature of holes – Holes are seen as dependent entities that cannot exist alone, can be filled without ceasing to be holes, and share their location with what occupies them.
“Holes are ontologically parasitic: they are always in something and cannot exist in isolation… ‘There is no such thing as a hole by itself’ (Tucholsky 1931).” – andai
“Holes are fillable… Holes are locationally gracious.” – andai -
Linguistic distinctions for holes (and related concepts) – Different languages encode specific kinds of holes or “bumps” with separate words, revealing how language shapes perception.
“Some languages even discriminate different types of hole, distinguishing e.g. between superficial hollows, inner cavities, and see‑through perforations.” – alister
“In Portuguese you have to use different words depending on the kind of hole: … buraco … furo …” – alister -
Philosophical and practical implications of naming absence – Treating holes as named absences broadens how we assign identity, useful in engineering (e.g., material removal) and as a tool for explaining philosophy.
“I see this as a broadening of the problem of how we assign identities and names to things. Clearly we can name the absence of things too…” – jl6
“How about engineering usage when removing material from, e.g., a beam, can help achieve overall weight/flexibility goals?” – smitty1e
“A lovely surprise to see this here; this was my favorite text for explaining ‘what is philosophy’ to people.” – fwlr