|
21821
|
Plato's Parmenides has a three-part theory, of Primal One, a One-Many, and a One-and-Many [Plato, by Plotinus]
|
|
Full Idea:
The Platonic Parmenides is more exact [than Parmenides himself]; the distinction is made between the Primal One, a strictly pure Unity, and a secondary One which is a One-Many, and a third which is a One-and-Many.
|
|
From:
report of Plato (Parmenides [c.364 BCE]) by Plotinus - The Enneads 5.1.08
|
|
A reaction:
Plotinus approves of this three-part theory. Parmenides has the problem that the highest Being contains no movement. By placing the One outside Being you can give it powers which an existent thing cannot have. Cf the concept of God.
|
|
11092
|
A river is a process, with stages; if we consider it as one thing, we are considering a process [Quine]
|
|
Full Idea:
A river is a process through time, and the river stages are its momentary parts. Identification of the river bathed in once with the river bathed in again is just what determines our subject matter to be a river process as opposed to a river stage.
|
|
From:
Willard Quine (Identity, Ostension, and Hypostasis [1950], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
So if we take a thing which has stages, but instead of talking about the stages we talk about a single thing that endures through them, then we are talking about a process. Sounds very good to me.
|
|
18475
|
Russell allows some complex facts, but Wittgenstein only allows atomic facts [MacBride]
|
|
Full Idea:
The logical atomism of Russell admitted some logically complex facts but not others - in contrast to Wittgenstein's version which admitted only atomic facts.
|
|
From:
Fraser MacBride (Truthmakers [2013], 2.1.3)
|
|
A reaction:
For truthmakers, it looks as if the Wittgenstein version might do a better job (e.g. with negative truths). I quite like the Russell approach, where complex facts underwrite the logical connectives. Disjunctive, negative, conjunctive, hypothetical facts.
|
|
11093
|
We don't say 'red' is abstract, unlike a river, just because it has discontinuous shape [Quine]
|
|
Full Idea:
'Red' is surely not going to be opposed to 'Cayster' [name of a river], as abstract to concrete, merely because of discontinuity in geometrical shape?
|
|
From:
Willard Quine (Identity, Ostension, and Hypostasis [1950], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
I've been slow to grasp the truth of this. However, Quine assumes that 'red' is concrete because 'Cayster' is, but it is perfectly arguable that 'Cayster' is an abstraction, despite all that water.
|
|
11101
|
General terms don't commit us ontologically, but singular terms with substitution do [Quine]
|
|
Full Idea:
The use of general terms does not commit us to admitting a corresponding abstract entity into our ontology, but an abstract singular term, including the law of putting equals for equals, flatly commits us to an abstract entity named by the term.
|
|
From:
Willard Quine (Identity, Ostension, and Hypostasis [1950], 4)
|
|
A reaction:
Does this mean that in 'for the sake of the children', I have to believe in 'sakes' if I can find a synonym which will substitute for it?
|