|
7950
|
Philosophy tries to explain how the actual is possible, given that it seems impossible [Macdonald,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
Philosophical problems are problems about how what is actual is possible, given that what is actual appears, because of some faulty argument, to be impossible.
|
|
From:
Cynthia Macdonald (Varieties of Things [2005], Ch.6)
|
|
A reaction:
[She is discussing universals when she makes this comment] A very appealing remark, given that most people come into philosophy because of a mixture of wonder and puzzlement. It is a rather Wittgensteinian view, though, that we must cure our own ills.
|
|
7923
|
'Did it for the sake of x' doesn't involve a sake, so how can ontological commitments be inferred? [Macdonald,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
In 'She did it for the sake of her country' no one thinks that the expression 'the sake' refers to an individual thing, a sake. But given that, how can we work out what the ontological commitments of a theory actually are?
|
|
From:
Cynthia Macdonald (Varieties of Things [2005], Ch.1)
|
|
A reaction:
For these sorts of reasons it rapidly became obvious that ordinary language analysis wasn't going to reveal much, but it is also a problem for a project like Quine's, which infers an ontology from the terms of a scientific theory.
|
|
10648
|
Mereology need not be nominalist, though it is often taken to be so [Varzi]
|
|
Full Idea:
While mereology was originally offered with a nominalist viewpoint, resulting in a conception of mereology as an ontologically parsimonious alternative to set theory, there is no necessary link between analysis of parthood and nominalism.
|
|
From:
Achille Varzi (Mereology [2003], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
He cites Lesniewski and Leonard-and-Goodman. Do you allow something called a 'whole' into your ontology, as well as the parts? He observes that while 'wholes' can be concrete, they can also be abstract, if the parts are abstract.
|
|
7944
|
Reduce by bridge laws (plus property identities?), by elimination, or by reducing talk [Macdonald,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are four kinds of reduction: the identifying of entities of two theories by means of bridge or correlation laws; the elimination of entities in favour of the other theory; reducing by bridge laws and property identities; and merely reducing talk.
|
|
From:
Cynthia Macdonald (Varieties of Things [2005], Ch.3 n5)
|
|
A reaction:
[She gives references] The idea of 'bridge laws' I regard with caution. If bridge laws are ceteris paribus, they are not much help, and if they are strict, or necessary, then there must be an underlying reason for that, which is probably elimination.
|
|
7967
|
Being taller is an external relation, but properties and substances have internal relations [Macdonald,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
The relation of being taller than is an external relation, since it relates two independent material substances, but the relation of instantiation or exemplification is internal, in that it relates a substance with a property.
|
|
From:
Cynthia Macdonald (Varieties of Things [2005], Ch.6)
|
|
A reaction:
An interesting revival of internal relations. To be plausible it would need clear notions of 'property' and 'substance'. We are getting a long way from physics, and I sense Ockham stropping his Razor. How do you individuate a 'relation'?
|
|
7934
|
Tropes are abstract (two can occupy the same place), but not universals (they have locations) [Macdonald,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
Tropes are abstract entities, at least in the sense that more than one can be in the same place at the same time (e.g. redness and roundness). But they are not universals, because they have unique and particular locations.
|
|
From:
Cynthia Macdonald (Varieties of Things [2005], Ch.3)
|
|
A reaction:
I'm uneasy about the reification involved in this kind of talk. Does a coin possess a thing called 'roundness', which then has to be individuated, identified and located? I am drawn to the two extreme views, and suspicious of compromise.
|
|
7972
|
Tropes are abstract particulars, not concrete particulars, so the theory is not nominalist [Macdonald,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
Trope 'Nominalism' is not a version of nominalism, because tropes are abstract particulars, rather than concrete particulars. Of course, a trope account of the relations between particulars and their properties has ramifications for concrete particulars.
|
|
From:
Cynthia Macdonald (Varieties of Things [2005], Ch.6 n16)
|
|
A reaction:
Cf. Idea 7971. At this point the boundary between nominalist and realist theories seems to blur. Possibly that is bad news for tropes. Not many dilemmas can be solved by simply blurring the boundary.
|
|
7960
|
Trope Nominalism is the only nominalism to introduce new entities, inviting Ockham's Razor [Macdonald,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
Of all the nominalist solutions, Trope Nominalism is the only one that tries to solve the problem at issue by introducing entities; all the others try to get by with concrete particulars and sets of them. This might invite Ockham's Razor.
|
|
From:
Cynthia Macdonald (Varieties of Things [2005], Ch.6)
|
|
A reaction:
We could reply that tropes are necessities. The issue seems to be a key one, which is whether our fundamental onotology should include properties (in some form or other). I am inclined to exclude them (Ideas 3322, 3906, 4029).
|
|
7951
|
Numerical sameness is explained by theories of identity, but what explains qualitative identity? [Macdonald,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
We can distinguish between numerical identity and qualitative identity. Numerical sameness is explained by a theory of identity, but what explains qualitative sameness?
|
|
From:
Cynthia Macdonald (Varieties of Things [2005], Ch.6)
|
|
A reaction:
The distinction is between type and token identity. Tokens are particulars, and types are sets, so her question comes down to the one of what entitles something to be a member of a set? Nothing, if sets are totally conventional, but they aren't.
|
|
7971
|
Real Nominalism is only committed to concrete particulars, word-tokens, and (possibly) sets [Macdonald,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
All real forms of Nominalism should hold that the only objects relevant to the explanation of generality are concrete particulars, words (i.e. word-tokens, not word-types), and perhaps sets.
|
|
From:
Cynthia Macdonald (Varieties of Things [2005], Ch.6 n16)
|
|
A reaction:
The addition of sets seems controversial (see Idea 7970). The context is her rejection of the use of tropes in nominalist theories. I would doubt whether a theory still counted as nominalist if it admitted sets (e.g. Quine).
|
|
7961
|
A 'thing' cannot be in two places at once, and two things cannot be in the same place at once [Macdonald,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
The so-called 'laws of thinghood' govern particulars, saying that one thing cannot be wholly present at different places at the same time, and two things cannot occupy the same place at the same time.
|
|
From:
Cynthia Macdonald (Varieties of Things [2005], Ch.6)
|
|
A reaction:
Is this an empirical observation, or a tautology? Or might it even be a priori synthetic? What happens when two water drops or clouds merge? Or an amoeba fissions? In what sense is an image in two places at once? Se also Idea 2351.
|
|
7926
|
We 'individuate' kinds of object, and 'identify' particular specimens [Macdonald,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
We can usefully refer to 'individuation conditions', to distinguish objects of that kind from objects not of that kind, and to 'identity conditions', to distinguish objects within that kind from one another.
|
|
From:
Cynthia Macdonald (Varieties of Things [2005], Ch.2)
|
|
A reaction:
So we individuate types or sets, and identify tokens or particulars. Sounds good. Should be in every philosopher's toolkit, and on every introductory philosophy course.
|
|
7932
|
A phenomenalist cannot distinguish substance from attribute, so must accept the bundle view [Macdonald,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
Commitment to the view that only what can be an object of possible sensory experience can exist eliminates the possibility of distinguishing between substance and attribute, leaving only one alternative, namely the bundle view.
|
|
From:
Cynthia Macdonald (Varieties of Things [2005], Ch.3)
|
|
A reaction:
Phenomenalism strikes me as a paradigm case of confusing ontology with epistemology. Presumably physicists (even empiricist ones) are committed to the 'interior' of quarks and electrons, but no one expects to experience them.
|
|
10661
|
'Composition is identity' says multitudes are the reality, loosely composing single things [Varzi]
|
|
Full Idea:
The thesis known as 'composition is identity' is that identity is mereological composition; a fusion is just the parts counted loosely, but it is strictly a multitude and loosely a single thing.
|
|
From:
Achille Varzi (Mereology [2003], 4.3)
|
|
A reaction:
[He cites D.Baxter 1988, in Mind] It is not clear, from this simple statement, what the difference is between multitudes that are parts of a thing, and multitudes that are not. A heavy weight seems to hang on the notion of 'composed of'.
|
|
7929
|
A substance is either a bundle of properties, or a bare substratum, or an essence [Macdonald,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
The three main theories of substance are the bundle theory (Leibniz, Berkeley, Hume, Ayer), the bare substratum theory (Locke and Bergmann), and the essentialist theory.
|
|
From:
Cynthia Macdonald (Varieties of Things [2005], Ch.3)
|
|
A reaction:
Macdonald defends the essentialist theory. The essentialist view immediately appeals to me. Properties must be OF something, and the something must have the power to produce properties. So there.
|
|
7941
|
Each substance contains a non-property, which is its substratum or bare particular [Macdonald,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
A rival to the bundle theory says that, for each substance, there is a constituent of it that is not a property but is both essential and unique to it, this constituent being referred to as a 'bare particular' or 'substratum'.
|
|
From:
Cynthia Macdonald (Varieties of Things [2005], Ch.3)
|
|
A reaction:
This doesn't sound promising. It is unclear what existence devoid of all properties could be like. How could it 'have' its properties if it was devoid of features (it seems to need property-hooks)? It is an ontological black hole. How do you prove it?
|
|
7942
|
The substratum theory explains the unity of substances, and their survival through change [Macdonald,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
If there is a substratum or bare particular within a substance, this gives an explanation of the unity of substances, and it is something which can survive intact when a substance changes.
|
|
From:
Cynthia Macdonald (Varieties of Things [2005], Ch.3)
|
|
A reaction:
[v. compressed wording] Many problems here. The one that strikes me is that when things change they sometimes lose their unity and identity, and that seems to be decided entirely from observation of properties, not from assessing the substratum.
|
|
7943
|
A substratum has the quality of being bare, and they are useless because indiscernible [Macdonald,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
There seems to be no way of identifying a substratum as the bearer of qualities without qualifiying it as bare (having the property of being bare?), ..and they cannot be used to individuate things, because they are necessarily indiscernible.
|
|
From:
Cynthia Macdonald (Varieties of Things [2005], Ch.3)
|
|
A reaction:
The defence would probably be a priori, claiming an axiomatic necessity for substrata in our thinking about the world, along with a denial that bareness is a property (any more than not being a contemporary of Napoleon is a property).
|
|
10647
|
Parts may or may not be attached, demarcated, arbitrary, material, extended, spatial or temporal [Varzi]
|
|
Full Idea:
The word 'part' can used whether it is attached, or arbitrarily demarcated, or gerrymandered, or immaterial, or unextended, or spatial, or temporal.
|
|
From:
Achille Varzi (Mereology [2003], 1)
|
|
10649
|
'Part' stands for a reflexive, antisymmetric and transitive relation [Varzi]
|
|
Full Idea:
It seems obvious that 'part' stands for a partial ordering, a reflexive ('everything is part of itself'), antisymmetic ('two things cannot be part of each other'), and transitive (a part of a part of a thing is part of that thing) relation.
|
|
From:
Achille Varzi (Mereology [2003], 2.1)
|
|
A reaction:
I'm never clear why the reflexive bit of the relation should be taken as 'obvious', since it seems to defy normal usage and common sense. It would be absurd to say 'I'll give you part of the cake' and hand you the whole of it. See Idea 10651.
|
|
10654
|
The parthood relation will help to define at least seven basic predicates [Varzi]
|
|
Full Idea:
With a basic parthood relation, we can formally define various mereological predicates, such as overlap, underlap, proper part, over-crossing, under-crossing, proper overlap, and proper underlap.
|
|
From:
Achille Varzi (Mereology [2003], 2.2)
|
|
A reaction:
[Varzi offers some diagrams, but they need interpretation]
|
|
7927
|
At different times Leibniz articulated three different versions of his so-called Law [Macdonald,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are three distinct versions of Leibniz's Law, all traced to remarks made by Leibniz: the Identity of Indiscernibles (same properties, same thing), the Indiscernibility of Identicals (same thing, same properties), and the Substitution Principle.
|
|
From:
Cynthia Macdonald (Varieties of Things [2005], Ch.2)
|
|
A reaction:
The best view seems to be to treat the second one as Leibniz's Law (and uncontroversially true), and the first one as being an interesting but dubious claim.
|
|
20653
|
Six reduction levels: groups, lives, cells, molecules, atoms, particles [Putnam/Oppenheim, by Watson]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are six 'reductive levels' in science: social groups, (multicellular) living things, cells, molecules, atoms, and elementary particles.
|
|
From:
report of H.Putnam/P.Oppenheim (Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis [1958]) by Peter Watson - Convergence 10 'Intro'
|
|
A reaction:
I have the impression that fields are seen as more fundamental that elementary particles. What is the status of the 'laws' that are supposed to govern these things? What is the status of space and time within this picture?
|
|
7947
|
In continuity, what matters is not just the beginning and end states, but the process itself [Macdonald,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
What matters to continuity is not just the beginning and end states of the process by which a thing persists, perhaps through change, but the process itself.
|
|
From:
Cynthia Macdonald (Varieties of Things [2005], Ch.4)
|
|
A reaction:
This strikes me as being a really important insight. Compare Idea 4931. If this is the key to understanding mind and personal identity, it means that the concept of a 'process' must be a central issue in ontology. How do you individuate a process?
|