8 ideas
18430 | We accept properties because of type/tokens, reference, and quantification [Edwards] |
Full Idea: Three main reasons for thinking properties exist: the one-over-many argument (that a type can have many tokens), the reference argument (to understand predicates and singular terms), and the quantification argument (that we quantify over them). | |
From: Douglas Edwards (Properties [2014], 1.1) | |
A reaction: [Bits in brackets are compressions of his explanations]. I don't find any of these remotely persuasive. Why would we infer how the world is, simply from how we talk about or reason about the world? His first reason is the only interesting one. |
18432 | Quineans say that predication is primitive and inexplicable [Edwards] |
Full Idea: The Quinean claims that the application of a predicate cannot, in principle, be explained - it is a 'primitive' fact. | |
From: Douglas Edwards (Properties [2014], 4.4) | |
A reaction: I am not clear what 'principle' could endorse this claim. There just seems to be a possible failure of all the usual attempts at explaining predication. |
8508 | A 'trope' is an abstract particular, the occurrence of an essence [Williams,DC] |
Full Idea: I shall divert the word 'trope' to stand for the abstract particular which is, so to speak, the occurrence of an essence. | |
From: Donald C. Williams (On the Elements of Being: I [1953], p.115) | |
A reaction: Thus tropes entered philosophical discussion. Presumably the precedent for an 'abstract particular' would be a particular occurrence of the number 7. |
8509 | A world is completely constituted by its tropes and their connections [Williams,DC] |
Full Idea: Any possible world, and hence, of course, this one, is completely constituted by its tropes and connections of location and similarity. | |
From: Donald C. Williams (On the Elements of Being: I [1953], p.116) | |
A reaction: Note that Williams regularly referred to possible worlds in 1953. This is a full-blooded trope theory, which asserts that objects are bundles of tropes, so that both particulars and universals are ontologically taken care of. |
8510 | 'Socrates is wise' means a concurrence sum contains a member of a similarity set [Williams,DC] |
Full Idea: 'Socrates is wise' means that the concurrence sum (Socrates) includes a trope which is a member of the similarity set (Wisdom). | |
From: Donald C. Williams (On the Elements of Being: I [1953], p.119) | |
A reaction: Resemblance has to be taken as a basic (and presumably unanalysable) concept, which invites Russell's objection (Idea 4441). |
18437 | Resemblance nominalism requires a second entity to explain 'the rose is crimson' [Edwards] |
Full Idea: For resemblance nominalism the sentence 'the rose is crimson' commits us to at least one other entity that the rose resembles in order for it to be crimson. | |
From: Douglas Edwards (Properties [2014], 5.5.2) | |
A reaction: If the theory really needs this, then it has just sunk without trace. It can't suddenly cease to be crimson when the last resembling entity disappears. |
18434 | That a whole is prior to its parts ('priority monism') is a view gaining in support [Edwards] |
Full Idea: The view of 'priority monism' - that the whole is prior to its parts - is controversial, but has been growing in support | |
From: Douglas Edwards (Properties [2014], 5.4.4) | |
A reaction: The simple and plausible thought is, I take it, that parts only count as parts when a whole comes into existence, so a whole is needed to generate parts. Thus the whole must be prior to the parts. Fine by me. |
20930 | The existence of law is one thing, its merits and demerits another [Austin,J] |
Full Idea: The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard is a different enquiry. | |
From: John Austin (Lectures on Jurisprudence [1858], p.214), quoted by Jens Zimmermann - Hermeneutics: a very short introduction 6 'Positivism' | |
A reaction: It is impossible to contest this point, but the issue is whether there is nothing more to law than its written existence. |