When I'm talking about "blurry" categorizations, I'm talking about how connotation has blurred what was once a very clear denotation. As in, the literal meanings of words like "organic" and "mechanical" -- which, as you've put it, are not ambiguous in the least -- are being challenged by modern associations of these words outside their original definitions. (A good case in point would be the grandparent comment, which used these words in connotative form to make a point about their denotative meaning).
"It may be that his choice of words conflicts with his meaning, or at least conflicts with your interpretation of his meaning, but doesn't make his original word choices less specific in their inherent meaning."
Not sure I understand what you're saying here. My point is that the words he used were used to frame a false dichotomy, and that the use of more precise words for what (I interpret) he was trying to get at would have improved his thought experiment. As I mentioned, I think he raised some good points, regardless of word choice.
As I also mentioned, "mechanical" (literal) and "organic" (literal) do not form a dichotomy; they are not mutually exclusive categories. Surely you would agree here, as you seem to be saying as much.
"Maybe I'm too far down the rabbit hole, but the Industrial Revolution hadn't even occured to me. There is plenty of mechanical action in the human body, and those have certainly been solids long before Latin came around."
Again, see my point about connotation vs. denotation. The IR is roughly when connotations about the word "mechanical" started muddying the waters. (We should note that the ancient Greeks, from whom the word 'mechanics' descends, were certainly prolific engineers in their own right -- but they were careful not to blur the lines the way English has).
At any rate, I brought up this point simply to give the OP some credit, i.e., that I can see how it's easy to use the word "mechanical" to refer to "artificial," given that modern-day connotation is heading in that direction. This was a side point at best, though, and not the focus of my post.
I apologize to you, and to the OP, and to any unfortunate readers of this discussion, for dragging us down what is indeed a rabbit hole.
No, it's not unfortunate at all. Please continue this kind of explanation and clarification [in the future]. Accurate and precise usage of terms helps maintain specific definitions for each idea/term, and retaining specific denotations (and reducing connotations) for more words will allow one to express more easily and clearly, so there won't be multiple connotations or inspecific, colloquial terms that dilute the meaning of what one wants to say.
"It may be that his choice of words conflicts with his meaning, or at least conflicts with your interpretation of his meaning, but doesn't make his original word choices less specific in their inherent meaning."
Not sure I understand what you're saying here. My point is that the words he used were used to frame a false dichotomy, and that the use of more precise words for what (I interpret) he was trying to get at would have improved his thought experiment. As I mentioned, I think he raised some good points, regardless of word choice.
As I also mentioned, "mechanical" (literal) and "organic" (literal) do not form a dichotomy; they are not mutually exclusive categories. Surely you would agree here, as you seem to be saying as much.
"Maybe I'm too far down the rabbit hole, but the Industrial Revolution hadn't even occured to me. There is plenty of mechanical action in the human body, and those have certainly been solids long before Latin came around."
Again, see my point about connotation vs. denotation. The IR is roughly when connotations about the word "mechanical" started muddying the waters. (We should note that the ancient Greeks, from whom the word 'mechanics' descends, were certainly prolific engineers in their own right -- but they were careful not to blur the lines the way English has).
At any rate, I brought up this point simply to give the OP some credit, i.e., that I can see how it's easy to use the word "mechanical" to refer to "artificial," given that modern-day connotation is heading in that direction. This was a side point at best, though, and not the focus of my post.
I apologize to you, and to the OP, and to any unfortunate readers of this discussion, for dragging us down what is indeed a rabbit hole.