|
15075
|
Modal features are not part of entities, because they are accounted for by the entity [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is natural to suggest that to be a man is to have certain kind of temporal-modal profile. ...but it seems natural that being a man accounts for the profile, ...so one should not appeal to an object's modal features in stating what the object is.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Necessity and Non-Existence [2005], 09)
|
|
A reaction:
This strikes me as a correct and very helpful point, as I am tempted to think that the modal dispositions of a thing are intrinsic to its identity. If we accept 'powers', must they be modal in character? Fine backs a sortal approach. That's ideology.
|
|
13332
|
Hierarchical set membership models objects better than the subset or aggregate relations do [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is the hierarchical conception of sets and their members, rather than the linear conception of set and subset or of aggregate and component, that provides us with the better model for the structure of part-whole in its application to material things.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Things and Their Parts [1999], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
His idea is to give some sort of internal structure. He says of {a,b,c,d} that we can create subsets {a,b} and {c,d} from that. But {{a,b},{c,d}} has given member sets, and he is looking for 'natural' divisions between the members.
|
|
13333
|
The matter is a relatively unstructured version of the object, like a set without membership structure [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
The wood is, as it were, a relatively unstructured version of the tree, just as the set {a,b,c,d} is an unstructured counterpart of the set {{a,b},{c,d}}.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Things and Their Parts [1999], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
He is trying to give a modern logicians' account of the Aristotelian concept of 'form' (as applied to matter). It is part of the modern project that objects must be connected to the formalism of mereology or set theory. If it works, are we thereby wiser?
|
|
14267
|
There is no distinctive idea of constitution, because you can't say constitution begins and ends [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
If the parts of a body can constitute a man, then why should men not constitute a family? Why draw the line at the level of the man? ...Thus the idea of a distinctive notion of constitution, terminating in concrete substances, should be given up.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Aristotle on Matter [1992], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
This is in the context of Aristotle, but Fine's view seems to apply to Rudder Baker's distinctive approach.
|
|
14264
|
Is there a plausible Aristotelian notion of constitution, applicable to both physical and non-physical? [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
There is a question of whether there is a viable conception of constitution of the sort Aristotle supposes, one which is uniformly applicable to physical and non-physical objects alike, and which is capable of hierarchical application.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Aristotle on Matter [1992], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
This is part of an explication of Aristotle's 'matter' [hule], which might be better translated as 'ingredients', which would fit non-physical things quite well.
|
|
13326
|
A 'temporary' part is a part at one time, but may not be at another, like a carburetor [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
First, a thing can be a part in a way that is relative to a time, for example, that a newly installed carburettor is now part of my car, whereas earlier it was not. (This will be called a 'temporary' part).
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Things and Their Parts [1999], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
[Cf Idea 13327 for the 'second' concept of part] I'm immediately uneasy. Being a part seems to be a univocal concept. He seems to be distinguishing parts which are necessary for identity from those which aren't. Fine likes to define by example.
|
|
13327
|
A 'timeless' part just is a part, not a part at some time; some atoms are timeless parts of a water molecule [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
Second, an object can be a part of another in a way that is not relative to time ('timeless'). It is not appropriate to ask when it is a part. Thus pants and jacket are parts of the suit, atoms of a water molecule, and two pints part of a quart of milk.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Things and Their Parts [1999], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
[cf Idea 13326 for the other concept of 'part'] Again I am uneasy that 'part' could have two meanings. A Life Member is a member in the same way that a normal paid up member is a member.
|
|
13329
|
An 'aggregative' sum is spread in time, and exists whenever a component exists [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
In the 'aggregative' understanding of a sum, it is spread out in time, so that exists whenever any of its components exists (just as it is located at any time wherever any of its components are located).
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Things and Their Parts [1999], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
This works particularly well for something like an ancient forest, which steadily changes its trees. On that view, though, the ship which has had all of its planks replaced will be the identical single sum of planks all the way through. Fine agrees.
|
|
13330
|
An 'compound' sum is not spread in time, and only exists when all the components exists [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
In the 'compound' notion of sum, the mereological sum is spread out only in space, not also in time. For it to exist at a time, all of its components must exist at the time.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Things and Their Parts [1999], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
It is hard to think of anything to which this applies, apart from for a classical mereologist. Named parts perhaps, like Tom, Dick and Harry. Most things preserve sum identity despite replacement of parts by identical components.
|
|
13328
|
Two sorts of whole have 'rigid embodiment' (timeless parts) or 'variable embodiment' (temporary parts) [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
I develop a version of hylomorphism, in which the theory of 'rigid embodiment' provides an account of the timeless relation of part, and the theory of 'variable embodiment' is an account of the temporary relation. We must accept two new kinds of whole.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Things and Their Parts [1999], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
[see Idea 13326 and Idea 13327 for the two concepts of 'part'] This is easier to take than the two meanings for 'part'. Since Aristotle, everyone has worried about true wholes (atoms, persons?) and looser wholes (houses).
|
|
11152
|
Essences are either taken as real definitions, or as necessary properties [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
Essence has been conceived either on the model of definition, involving the 'real' as opposed to 'nominal' definitions, or it is elucidated in modal terms, located in de re cases of modal attributions (an object being necessarily a certain way).
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Essence and Modality [1994], p. 2)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] Fine sets out to defend the definitional view, which derives from Aristotle, his line being that necessity depends on essence, and so cannot be used to define it. I think I agree.
|
|
11173
|
Being a man is a consequence of his essence, not constitutive of it [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
If we distinguish 'constitutive' from 'consequential' essence, ..then the essence of Socrates will, in part, be constituted by his being a man. But being a man (or a mountain) will merely be consequential upon, and not constitutive of, his essence.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Senses of Essence [1995], §3)
|
|
A reaction:
Yes yes yes. I think it is absurd to say that the class to which something belongs is part of its essential nature, given that it presumably can only belong to the class if it already has a certain essential nature. What did Frankenstein construct?
|
|
11179
|
If there are alternative definitions, then we have three possibilities for essence [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
If there are alternative definitions for an essence, we must distinguish three notions. There is the essence as the manifold (the combined definitions), or as the range of alternative definitions (with component essences), or there is the common essence.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Senses of Essence [1995], §8)
|
|
A reaction:
Fine opts for the third alternative (what the definitions all have in common) as the best account. He says (p.68) 'definitive' properties come from one definition, and 'essential' properties from every possible definition.
|
|
11161
|
Essentially having a property is naturally expressed as 'the property it must have to be what it is' [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
We have an informal way of saying an object essentially has a property, as 'the object must have the property if it is to be the object that it is', and this form of words manages to convey what we wish to convey.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Essence and Modality [1994], p. 4)
|
|
A reaction:
The importance of this claim is that it makes no mention of 'necessity'. Fine's view is plausible, but hard to evaluate once he has said. We seem to then divide an object's properties into identity properties, causal properties and peripheral properties.
|
|
11163
|
The nature of singleton Socrates has him as a member, but not vice versa [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
Can we not recognise a sense of 'what an object is', according to which it lies in the nature of a singleton to have Socrates as a member, even though it does not lie in the nature of Socrates to belong to the singleton?
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Essence and Modality [1994], p. 5)
|
|
A reaction:
Important and persuasive. It echoes the example in Idea 11162, that the necessary relation is not part of the essence. Socrates is necessarily in {Socrates}, but that is because of the set, not because of Socrates. Essences causes necessities.
|
|
10935
|
An essential property of something must be bound up with what it is to be that thing [Fine,K, by Rami]
|
|
Full Idea:
Fine's view is that the notion of an essential property of a thing should be bound up with the notion of what it is to be that thing (unlike, for example, Socrates being such that there are infinitely many primes).
|
|
From:
report of Kit Fine (Essence and Modality [1994]) by Adolph Rami - Essential vs Accidental Properties §2
|
|
A reaction:
I would think that Fine is so obviously right that it was hardly worth saying, but philosophers are a funny lot, and are quite likely to claim that features of prime numbers are part of the essence of a long-dead philosopher.
|
|
12298
|
Genuine motion, rather than variation of position, requires the 'entire presence' of the object [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
In order to have genuine motion, rather than mere variation in position, it is necessary that the object should be 'entirely present' at each moment of the change. Thus without entire presence, or existence, genuine motion will not be possible.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (In Defence of Three-Dimensionalism [2006], p.6)
|
|
A reaction:
See Idea 4786 for a rival view of motion. Of course, who says we have to have Kit Fine's 'genuine' motion, if some sort of ersatz motion still gets you to work in the morning?
|
|
12296
|
4-D says things are stretched in space and in time, and not entire at a time or at a location [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
Four-dimensionalists have thought that a material thing is as equally 'stretched out' in time as it is in space, and that there is no special way in which it is entirely present at a moment rather than at a position.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (In Defence of Three-Dimensionalism [2006], p.1)
|
|
A reaction:
Compare his definition of 3-D in Idea 12295. The 4-D is contrary to our normal way of thinking. Since I don't think the future exists, I presume that if I am a 4-D object then I have to say that I don't yet exist, and I disapprove of such talk.
|
|
18882
|
You can ask when the wedding was, but not (usually) when the bride was [Fine,K, by Simons]
|
|
Full Idea:
Fine says it is acceptable to ask when a wedding was and where it was, and it is acceptable to ask or state where the bride was (at a certain time), but not when she was.
|
|
From:
report of Kit Fine (In Defence of Three-Dimensionalism [2006], p.18) by Peter Simons - Modes of Extension: comment on Fine p.18
|
|
A reaction:
This is aimed at three-dimensionalists who seem to think that a bride is a prolonged event, just as a wedding is. Fine is, interestingly, invoking ordinary language. When did the wedding start and end? When was the bride's birth and death?
|
|
12297
|
Three-dimensionalist can accept temporal parts, as things enduring only for an instant [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
Even if one is a three-dimensionalist, one might affirm the existence of temporal parts, on the grounds that everything merely endures for an instant.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (In Defence of Three-Dimensionalism [2006], p.2)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems an important point, as belief in temporal parts is normally equated with four-dimensionalism (see Idea 12296). The idea is that a thing might be 'entirely present' at each instant, only to be replaced by a simulacrum.
|
|
17279
|
Even a three-dimensionalist might identify temporal parts, in their thinking [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
Even the three-dimensionalist might be willing to admit that material things have temporal parts. For given any persisting object, he might suppose that 'in thought' we could mark out its temporal segments or parts.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Guide to Ground [2012], 1.02)
|
|
A reaction:
A big problem with temporal parts is how thin they are. Hawley says they are as fine-grained as time itself, but what if time has no grain? How thin can you 'think' a temporal part to be? Fine says imagined parts are grounded in things, not vice versa.
|
|
15073
|
Self-identity should have two components, its existence, and its neutral identity with itself [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
The existential identity of an object with itself needs analysis into two components, one the neutral identity of the object with itself, and the other its existence. The existence of the object appears to be merely a gratuitous addition to its identity.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Necessity and Non-Existence [2005], 08)
|
|
A reaction:
This is at least a step towards clarification of the notion, which might be seen as just a way of asserting that something 'has an identity'. Fine likes the modern Fregean way of expressing this, as an equality relation.
|