|
12312
|
The real essence of a thing is its powers, or 'dispositional properties' [Copi]
|
|
Full Idea:
With respect to scientific usage, we can say that the real essence of a thing will consist very largely of powers or, in modern terms, dispositional properties.
|
|
From:
Irving M. Copi (Essence and Accident [1954], p.718)
|
|
A reaction:
Once again, Copi is a hero. I personally love the word 'powers' in metaphysics (and dislike the word 'properties', which is lost in a fog of confusion). See Molnar on 'powers' and Mumford on 'dispositions'.
|
|
16700
|
In order to speak about time and successive entities, the 'present' must be enlarged [Wycliff]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is clear from the way in which one must speak about time and other successive entities that talk about 'the present' must be enlarged. Otherwise it would have to be denied that any successive entity could exist, which is impossible.
|
|
From:
John Wycliff (De ente praedicamentali [1375], 20 p.189), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 18.3
|
|
A reaction:
This is a lovely idea, even if it is not quite clear what it means. The mind seems to stretch out the now anyway (as the 'specious present'), so why not embrace that in language and conscious thought?
|
|
16701
|
To be successive a thing needs parts, which must therefore be lodged outside that instant [Wycliff]
|
|
Full Idea:
If something is successive, it is successive with respect to its individual parts, which cannot exist at the same instant. Therefore it follows that many of its parts are lodged outside that instant.
|
|
From:
John Wycliff (De ente praedicamentali [1375], 20 p.189), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 18.3
|
|
A reaction:
An obvious would be to say that there are therefore no successive entities, but Wycliff is appealing to our universal acceptance of them, and offering a transcendental argument. Nice move.
|
|
12303
|
Within the four types of change, essential attributes are those whose loss means destruction [Copi]
|
|
Full Idea:
If we can distinguish the different kinds of change (alteration, locomotion, growth, diminution), then we can say that a given attribute is essential to an object if its loss would result in the destruction of that object.
|
|
From:
Irving M. Copi (Essence and Accident [1954], p.707-8)
|
|
A reaction:
As Copi is aware, this is a necessary condition for a property for essence, but not sufficient. If an attribute were necessary but non-essential, its loss would also be destruction. We say the essential attributes must also have some explanatory role.
|
|
6493
|
We are not conscious of pure liquidity, but of the liquidity of water [Firth]
|
|
Full Idea:
We are not conscious of liquidity, coldness, and solidity, but of the liquidity of water, the coldness of ice, and the solidity of rocks.
|
|
From:
Roderick Firth (Sense Data and the Percept Theory [1949]), quoted by Howard Robinson - Perception 1.7
|
|
A reaction:
A nice point, but it might not be entirely true in a blindfold test, where one might only report properties like 'sticky' or 'warm', without having any clear concept of the substance being experienced. Firth is proposing the 'percept theory'.
|