display all the ideas for this combination of texts
3 ideas
| 13435 | We can't categorise things by their real essences, because these are unknown [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Nor indeed can we rank and sort things, and consequently (which is the end of sorting) denominate them by their real essences, because we know them not. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.09) | |
| A reaction: Hence he says we categorise by the nominal essence, which is the ideas we have formed from our experiences of things. If we now have experts who have mastered some real essences, Locke is wrong, if we submit to the expert categories. |
| 12535 | If we discovered real essences, we would still categorise things by the external appearance [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Supposing that the real essences were discoverable, ..yet we could not reasonably think that the ranking of things under general names was regulated by those internal real constitutions, or any thing else but their obvious appearance. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.25) | |
| A reaction: This makes Putnam's water and twater the same! I take it there is no rule here. The authority of science has gradually substitute H2O as the criterion for water, so real essence rules, but it doesn't have to. |
| 13436 | There are no gaps in the continuum of nature, and everything has something closely resembling it [Locke] |
| Full Idea: In the visible corporeal world we see no chasms or gaps. All quite down from us the descent is by easy steps and a continued series of things, that in each remove differ very little from the other. There are fish that have wings, and birds inhabit water. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.12) | |
| A reaction: This is a direct contradiction of Plato's claim that nature has joints (Idea 7953). Locke's claim doesn't sound very plausible for many cases, and the examples he gives are far from conclusive. |