|
15956
|
The peripatetics treated forms and real qualities as independent of matter, and non-material [Alexander,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
The peripatetic philosophers, in spite of their disagreements, all treated forms and real qualities as independent of matter and not to be understood in material terms.
|
|
From:
Peter Alexander (Ideas, Qualities and Corpuscles [1985], 54)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the simple reason why hylomorphism became totally discredited, in the face of the 'mechanical philosophy'. But there must be a physical version of hylomorphism, and I don't think Aristotle himself would reject it.
|
|
21497
|
If undetailed, 'coherence' is just a vague words that covers all possible arguments [Ewing]
|
|
Full Idea:
Without a detailed account, coherence is reduced to the mere muttering of the word 'coherence', which can be interpreted so as to cover all arguments, but only by making its meaning so wide as to rob it of almost all significance.
|
|
From:
A.C. Ewing (Idealism: a critical survey [1934], p.246), quoted by Erik J. Olsson - Against Coherence 2.2
|
|
A reaction:
I'm a fan of coherence, but it is a placeholder, involving no intrinsic or detailed theory. I just think it points to the reality of how we make judgements, especially practical ones. We can categorise the inputs, and explain the required virtues.
|
|
15975
|
Can the qualities of a body be split into two groups, where the smaller explains the larger? [Alexander,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
Is there any way of separating the qualities that bodies appear to have into two groups, one as small as possible and the other as large as possible, such that the smaller group can plausibly be used to explain the larger?
|
|
From:
Peter Alexander (Ideas, Qualities and Corpuscles [1985], 5.02)
|
|
A reaction:
Alexander implies that this is a question Locke asked himself. This is pretty close to what I take to be the main question for essentialism, though I am cautious about couching it in terms of groups of qualities. I think this was Aristotle's question.
|
|
18671
|
The ground for an attitude is not a thing's 'goodness', but its concrete characteristics [Ewing]
|
|
Full Idea:
The ground for an attitude lies not in some other ethical concept, goodness, but in the concrete, factual characteristics of what we pronounce good. ...We shall not be better off if we interpolate an indefinable characteristic of goodness besides.
|
|
From:
A.C. Ewing (The Definition of Good [1948], p.172), quoted by Francesco Orsi - Value Theory 1.4
|
|
A reaction:
This is a forerunner of Scanlon's Buck-Passing theory of the source of value (in other properties). I approve of this approach. If I say 'actually this very strong cheese is really good', I'm not adding goodness to the cheese.
|
|
15963
|
Science has been partly motivated by the belief that the universe is run by God's laws [Alexander,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
The idea of a designed universe has not been utterly irrelevant to the scientific project; it is one of the beliefs that can give a scientist the faith that there are laws, waiting to be discovered, that govern all phenomena.
|
|
From:
Peter Alexander (Ideas, Qualities and Corpuscles [1985], 03.3)
|
|
A reaction:
Of course if you start out looking for the 'laws of God' that is probably what you will discover. Natural selection strikes me as significant, because it shows no sign of being a procedure appropriate to a benevolent god.
|