display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers
5 ideas
15822 | The concept of physical necessity is basic to both causation, and to the concept of nature [Chisholm] |
Full Idea: It is generally agreed, I think, that the concept of physical necessity, or a law of nature, is fundamental to the theory of causation and, more generally, to the concept of nature. | |
From: Roderick Chisholm (Person and Object [1976], 2.3) | |
A reaction: This seems intuitively right, but we might be able to formulate a concept of nature that had a bit less necessity in it, especially if we read a few books on quantum theory first. |
12705 | Epicurean atoms are distinguished by their extreme hardness [Garber] |
Full Idea: In Epicurean atomism (of Cordemoy, for example) there is a world of basic things distinguished by virtue of their extreme hardness. | |
From: Daniel Garber (Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad [2009], 2) | |
A reaction: Garber says that Leibniz espouses 'substantial atomism', which is different from this. Leibniz's atoms have active power, where these atoms just embody total resistance. |
15823 | Some propose a distinct 'agent causation', as well as 'event causation' [Chisholm] |
Full Idea: Sometimes a distinction is made between 'event causation' and 'agent causation' and it has been suggested that there is an unbridgeable gap between the two. | |
From: Roderick Chisholm (Person and Object [1976], 2.5) | |
A reaction: Nope, don't buy that. I connect it with Davidson's 'anomalous monism', that tries to combine one substance with separate laws of action. The metaphysical price for such a theory is too high to pay. |
3445 | Causation among objects relates either events or states [Chisholm] |
Full Idea: Between natural objects we may say that causation is a relation between events or states of affairs. | |
From: Roderick Chisholm (Human Freedom and the Self [1964], p.28) |
15820 | A 'law of nature' is just something which is physically necessary [Chisholm] |
Full Idea: When we say something is 'physically necessary' we can replace it with 'law of nature'. | |
From: Roderick Chisholm (Person and Object [1976], 2.2) | |
A reaction: [plucked out of context even more than usual!] This is illuminating about what contemporary philosophers (such as Armstrong) seem to mean by a law of nature. It is not some grand equation, but a small local necessary connection. |