Combining Philosophers

Ideas for B Hale / C Wright, Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) and Verity Harte

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

display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers


5 ideas

9. Objects / A. Existence of Objects / 2. Abstract Objects / c. Modern abstracta
Objects just are what singular terms refer to [Hale/Wright]
     Full Idea: Objects, as distinct from entities of other types (properties, relations or, more generally, functions of different types and levels), just are what (actual or possible) singular terms refer to.
     From: B Hale / C Wright (Intro to 'The Reason's Proper Study' [2001], 3.1)
     A reaction: I find this view very bizarre and hard to cope with. It seems either to preposterously accept the implications of the way we speak into our ontology ('sakes'?), or preposterously bend the word 'object' away from its normal meaning.
9. Objects / C. Structure of Objects / 6. Constitution of an Object
Mereology treats constitution as a criterion of identity, as shown in the axiom of extensionality [Harte,V]
     Full Idea: Mereologists do suppose that constitution is a criterion of identity. This view is enshrined in the Mereological axiom of extensionality; that objects with the same parts are identical.
     From: Verity Harte (Plato on Parts and Wholes [2002], 3.1)
     A reaction: A helpful explanation of why classical mereology is a very confused view of the world. It is at least obvious that a long wall and a house are different things, even if built of identical bricks.
9. Objects / C. Structure of Objects / 8. Parts of Objects / b. Sums of parts
What exactly is a 'sum', and what exactly is 'composition'? [Harte,V]
     Full Idea: The difficulty with the claim that a whole is (just) the sum of its parts is what are we to understand by 'the sum'? ...If we say wholes are 'composites' of parts, how are we to understand the relation of composition?
     From: Verity Harte (Plato on Parts and Wholes [2002], 1.1)
If something is 'more than' the sum of its parts, is the extra thing another part, or not? [Harte,V]
     Full Idea: Holism inherits all the difficulties associated with the term 'sum' and adds one of its own, when it says a whole is 'more than' the sum of its parts. This seems to say it has something extra? Is this something extra a part?
     From: Verity Harte (Plato on Parts and Wholes [2002], 1.1)
     A reaction: [compressed] Most people take the claim that a thing is more than the sum of its parts as metaphorical, I would think (except perhaps emergentists about the mind, and they are wrong).
The problem with the term 'sum' is that it is singular [Harte,V]
     Full Idea: For my money, the real problem with the term 'sum' is that it is singular.
     From: Verity Harte (Plato on Parts and Wholes [2002], 1.1)
     A reaction: Her point is that the surface grammar makes you accept a unity here, with no account of what unifies it, or even whether there is a unity. Does classical mereology have a concept (as the rest of us do) of 'disunity'?