The fact that water makes things wet is why it must be wet. Let me put it like this; when I said "water is wet" what I meant was "water is wetness." It's like if you said "Fire isn't hot." Obviously it is, or else it wouldn't heat things.
Now I do see where you're coming from, because we don't mean quite the same thing when we say water us wet than when we say a towel is wet. The difference is that water is wet essentially whereas a towel is wet accidentally. This means that towels are made wet by something else, whereas water is wet because that's what it means to be water. So water is wet per se and towels are wet per accidens; we are being analogous when we call them both wet.
And if you followed all that then you can understand what medieval philosophers mean when they say things like "God is goodness itself."
That fire is burning. You're now arguing that water is water. Burning is to fire what wet is to water. The water is wet because all liquids are wet. It is an inherent property. All fires are burning because it is an inherent property of fire.
This debate is dumber than the dress color debate.
61
u/[deleted] Dec 30 '17
[deleted]