Combining Philosophers

Ideas for Archimedes, John Heil and Paul J. Cohen

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these philosophers

display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers


4 ideas

7. Existence / C. Structure of Existence / 2. Reduction
The reductionist programme dispenses with levels of reality [Heil]
     Full Idea: The reductionist programme dispenses with levels of reality.
     From: John Heil (From an Ontological Point of View [2003], 04.3)
     A reaction: Fodor, for example, claims that certain causal laws only operate at high levels of reality. I agree with Heil's idea - the notion that there are different realities around here that don't connect properly to one another is philosopher's madness.
Our categories lack the neat arrangement needed for reduction [Heil]
     Full Idea: Categories we use to describe and explain our universe do not line up in the neat way reductive schemes require.
     From: John Heil (The Universe as We Find It [2012], 13.2)
     A reaction: He takes reduction to be largely a relation between our categories, rather than between entities, so he is bound to get this result. He may be right.
7. Existence / C. Structure of Existence / 3. Levels of Reality
A higher level is 'supervenient' if it is determined by lower levels, but has its own natural laws [Heil]
     Full Idea: 'Supervenience' means lower-level objects and properties suffice for the higher level ones, but the higher level is distinct from its ground, which is reflected in the higher level being governed by distinct laws of nature.
     From: John Heil (Philosophy of Mind [1998], Ch.6)
     A reaction: A nice summary of Davidson's idea. It feels wrong to me. Can I create some 'new laws of nature' by combining things novelly in a laboratory so that a supervenient state emerges. Sounds silly to me. Must we invoke God to achieve this?
There are levels of organisation, complexity, description and explanation, but not of reality [Heil]
     Full Idea: We should accept levels of organisation, levels of complexity, levels of description, and levels of explanation, but not the levels of reality favoured by many anti-reductionists. The world is then ontologically, but not analytically, reductive.
     From: John Heil (From an Ontological Point of View [2003], Intro)
     A reaction: This sounds right to me. The crunch questions seem to be whether the boundaries at higher levels of organisation exist lower down, and whether the causal laws of the higher levels can be translated without remainder into lower level laws.