more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
If the parts of a body can constitute a man, then why should men not constitute a family? Why draw the line at the level of the man? ...Thus the idea of a distinctive notion of constitution, terminating in concrete substances, should be given up.
Gist of Idea
There is no distinctive idea of constitution, because you can't say constitution begins and ends
Source
Kit Fine (Aristotle on Matter [1992], 1)
Book Ref
-: 'Mind' [-], p.38
A Reaction
This is in the context of Aristotle, but Fine's view seems to apply to Rudder Baker's distinctive approach.
| 12302 | Definitions formed an abstract hierarchy for Aristotle, as sets do for us [Fine,K] |
| 14267 | There is no distinctive idea of constitution, because you can't say constitution begins and ends [Fine,K] |
| 14264 | Is there a plausible Aristotelian notion of constitution, applicable to both physical and non-physical? [Fine,K] |
| 14265 | The components of abstract definitions could play the same role as matter for physical objects [Fine,K] |
| 14266 | Aristotle sees hierarchies in definitions using genus and differentia (as we see them in sets) [Fine,K] |
| 14268 | Maybe bottom-up grounding shows constitution, and top-down grounding shows essence [Fine,K] |