Combining Philosophers

Ideas for Stephen Wolfram, S.Mumford/R.Lill Anjum and Nicholas Hill

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

display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers

4 ideas

9. Objects / B. Unity of Objects / 3. Unity Problems / c. Statue and clay
14542 If statue and clay fall and crush someone, the event is not overdetermined [Mumford/Anjum]
     Full Idea: If both the statue and the clay fall on someone and crush them to death, we would not say that the death is overdetermined.
     From: S.Mumford/R.Lill Anjum (Getting Causes from Powers [2011], 2.7)
     A reaction: I don't need many reasons to give up the idea that the statue and the clay are two objects, but this will do nicely as one of them.
9. Objects / C. Structure of Objects / 1. Structure of an Object
14535 Pandispositionalists say structures are clusters of causal powers [Mumford/Anjum]
     Full Idea: A pandispositionalist has to defend the view that even a property such as sphericity is in reality a cluster of causal powers.
     From: S.Mumford/R.Lill Anjum (Getting Causes from Powers [2011], 1.1)
     A reaction: Is sphericity even a 'property'? I think 'feature' might be the best word for it. 'Quality' is quite good, but is too suggestive of qualia and secondary qualities. 'Mode' is not bad. Things have 'modes of existence' and 'powers'? Powers create modes.
9. Objects / C. Structure of Objects / 2. Hylomorphism / b. Form as principle
16640 Form is the principle that connects a thing's constitution (rather than being operative) [Hill,N]
     Full Idea: Form is the state and condition of a thing, a result of the connection among its material principles; it is a constituting principle, not an operative one.
     From: Nicholas Hill (Philosophia Epicurea [1610], n 35)
     A reaction: Pasnau presents this as a denial of form, but it looks to me like someone fishing for what form could be in a more scientific context. Aristotle would have approved of 'principles'. Hill seems to defend the categorical against the dispositional.
9. Objects / E. Objects over Time / 5. Temporal Parts
14561 Perdurantism imposes no order on temporal parts, so sequences of events are contingent [Mumford/Anjum]
     Full Idea: Perdurantism tends to go with the view that it is essentially contingent what follows what, because it is no part of the essence of temporal parts that they be arranged in any particular order.
     From: S.Mumford/R.Lill Anjum (Getting Causes from Powers [2011], 5.5 1)
     A reaction: Nice. There is nothing illogical, then, in elderly me intervening between childish me and middle-aged me. Essentialists like me must clearly oppose this view. Elderly me must be preceded and caused by middle-aged me.