Combining Texts

Ideas for 'Protagoras', 'talk' and 'The Powers Metaphysics'

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

display all the ideas for this combination of texts


7 ideas

7. Existence / B. Change in Existence / 1. Nature of Change
Change exists, it is causal, and it needs an explanation [Williams,NE]
     Full Idea: There is a phenomenon of change. I am starting with the assumptions that it is a causal phenomenon, and that it requires explanation.
     From: Neil E. Williams (The Powers Metaphysics [2019], 06.1)
     A reaction: That is, I take it, that we need a theory which explains change, rather than just describing it. Well said. Williams says, roughly, that each stage causes the next stage.
7. Existence / B. Change in Existence / 2. Processes
Processes don't begin or end; they just change direction unexpectedly [Williams,NE]
     Full Idea: No process every really starts or ends. …A process we see as derailed is really just an expected sequence that continues in an unexpected direction.
     From: Neil E. Williams (The Powers Metaphysics [2019], 06.3)
     A reaction: Obviously if you cannot individuate processes, then the concept of a process is not much use in ontology. Williams rejects processes, and I think he is probably right. He breaks processes down into smaller units.
Processes are either strings of short unchanging states, or continuous and unreducible events [Williams,NE]
     Full Idea: Processes can be modelled in two ways. They are drawn out events encompassing many changes, but dissectible into short-lived states, none including change. Or they are continuous and impenetrable, and to split them is impossible.
     From: Neil E. Williams (The Powers Metaphysics [2019], 09.3)
     A reaction: Obviously a process has temporal moments in it, so the unsplittability is conceptual. I find the concept of changeless parts baffling. But if processes are drawn out, they can't be basic to ontology.
7. Existence / D. Theories of Reality / 1. Ontologies
The status quo is part of what exists, and so needs metaphysical explanation [Williams,NE]
     Full Idea: The status quo is part of what exists, and thus it is a proper topic of concern for the metaphysician, and so it warrants explanation.
     From: Neil E. Williams (The Powers Metaphysics [2019], 07.2)
     A reaction: His point is that ontology as a mere inventory of things gives no account of why they remain unchanged, as well as their processes and connections.
A metaphysic is a set of wider explanations derived from a basic ontology [Williams,NE]
     Full Idea: A metaphysic is what you get when you embed a fundamental ontology within a larger metaphysical framework by repeatedly appealing to elements of that ontology in explaining metaphysical phenomena. …Only then do you see what the ontology is worth.
     From: Neil E. Williams (The Powers Metaphysics [2019], 01.1)
     A reaction: Confirming my mantra that metaphysics is an explanatory activity. I think it is important that the ontology includes relations (such as 'determinations'), and is not just an inventory of types of entity.
Humeans say properties are passive, possibility is vast, laws are descriptions, causation is weak [Williams,NE]
     Full Idea: The main components of neo-Humean metaphysics are that properties are inherently non-modal and passive, that what is possible is restricted only by imagination and coherence, that laws are non-governing descriptions, and causation is weak and extrinsic.
     From: Neil E. Williams (The Powers Metaphysics [2019], 02.1)
     A reaction: This is Williams identifying the enemy, prior to offering the much more active and restictive powers ontology. I'm with Williams.
We shouldn't posit the existence of anything we have a word for [Williams,NE]
     Full Idea: There seems to be a mysterious desire to posit entities simply because certain terms pop up in our vocabulary. But we should not be so indiscriminate about our posits, even if our talk is properly vetted.
     From: Neil E. Williams (The Powers Metaphysics [2019], 04.1)
     A reaction: This should hardly need saying, and the familiar example is 'for the sake of' entailing sakes, but it seems to be a vice that is still found in metaphysical philosophy. The word 'nothingness' comes to mind.