Combining Texts

Ideas for 'Theory of Knowledge (2nd edn)', 'Introduction to 'Virtues of Authenticity'' and 'The Philosophy of Nature: new essentialism'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these texts

display all the ideas for this combination of texts


4 ideas

26. Natural Theory / B. Natural Kinds / 1. Natural Kinds
Natural kinds are of objects/substances, or events/processes, or intrinsic natures [Ellis]
     Full Idea: Natural kinds appear to be of objects or substances, or of events or processes, or of the intrinsic nature of things; hence there should be laws of nature specific to each of these categories.
     From: Brian Ellis (The Philosophy of Nature: new essentialism [2002], Ch.5)
     A reaction: It is nice to see someone actually discussing what sort of natural kinds there are, instead of getting bogged down in how natural kinds terms get their meaning or reference. Ellis recognises that 'intrinsic nature' needs some discussion.
26. Natural Theory / B. Natural Kinds / 4. Source of Kinds
Essentialism says natural kinds are fundamental to nature, and determine the laws [Ellis]
     Full Idea: According to essentialists, the world is wholly structured at the most fundamental level into natural kinds, and the laws of nature are all determined by those kinds.
     From: Brian Ellis (The Philosophy of Nature: new essentialism [2002], Ch.5)
     A reaction: I am a fan of this view, despite being cautious about claims that natural kinds have necessary identity. Why are the essences active? That is the old Greek puzzle about the origin of movement. And why are natural kinds stable?
26. Natural Theory / B. Natural Kinds / 6. Necessity of Kinds
For essentialists two members of a natural kind must be identical [Ellis]
     Full Idea: Modern essentialists would insist that any two members of the same natural kind must be identical in all essential respects.
     From: Brian Ellis (The Philosophy of Nature: new essentialism [2002], Ch.1)
     A reaction: For this reason, animals no longer qualify as natural kinds, but electrons, gold atoms, and water molecules do. My sticking point is when anyone asserts that an electron necessarily has (say) its mass. Why no close counterpart of electrons?
The whole of our world is a natural kind, so all worlds like it necessarily have the same laws [Ellis]
     Full Idea: It is plausible to suppose that the world is an instance of a natural kind, ..and what is naturally necessary in our world is what must be true in any world of the same natural kind.
     From: Brian Ellis (The Philosophy of Nature: new essentialism [2002], Ch.6)
     A reaction: This is putting an awful lot of metaphysical weight on the concept of a 'natural kind', so it had better be a secure one. If we accept that natural laws necessarily follow from essences, why shouldn't the whole of our world have an essence, as water does?