display all the ideas for this combination of texts
38 ideas
7935 | There cannot be uninstantiated properties [Aristotle, by Macdonald,C] |
Full Idea: Aristotle held that there could be no uninstantiated properties. | |
From: report of Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], Bk 04) by Cynthia Macdonald - Varieties of Things | |
A reaction: This is obviously a right hook aimed at Plato. Clearly we can think about uninstantiated properties, but the literal truth of Aristotle's view I would take to be tautological. To exist is to be instantiated. |
16161 | Properties are just the ways in which forms are realised at various times [Aristotle, by Frede,M] |
Full Idea: On Aristotle's new theory it is forms that exist in their own right, whereas properties merely constitute the way forms of a certain kind are realized at some point of time in their existence. | |
From: report of Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], props) by Michael Frede - Substance in Aristotle's 'Metaphysics' p.80 | |
A reaction: I'm not sure that 'merely' gives us enough of a story here. I never understand the word 'realised' (or 'instantiated', come to that). What does x have to do to realise y? Is that a relation between a real and a non-real thing? |
15109 | The 'propriae' or 'necessary accidents' of a thing are separate, and derived from the essence [Aristotle, by Koslicki] |
Full Idea: Aristotle conceives of the necessary features of objects, traditionally known as the 'propria' or 'necessary accidents', as being distinct and derivate from, the essential features of objects. | |
From: report of Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], props) by Kathrin Koslicki - Essence, Necessity and Explanation 13.1 | |
A reaction: This is a vague area, because Aristotle says very little about it. See Ideas 12266 and 12262. A particular shape of mole might be yours alone, but not part of your essence. That may be an 'idion' rather than a 'propria' (or are they the same?). |
17849 | For two things to differ in some respect, they must both possess that respect [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: That which is different is different from something under some aspect, so that there must be something the same in respect of which they differ. | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1054b26) |
7686 | For Aristotle, there are only as many properties as actually exist [Aristotle, by Jacquette] |
Full Idea: In Aristotle's metaphysics of substance, there are only as many properties as actually inhere in existent spatiotemporal particulars. | |
From: report of Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], props) by Dale Jacquette - Ontology Ch.2 | |
A reaction: This would mean, oddly, that squareness ceased to be a property if the last square thing vanished. But then how do we establish the existence of unrealised properties? Is 'bigger than the biggest existent object' a property? |
10947 | Whiteness can be explained without man, but femaleness cannot be explained without animal [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: Whiteness can be explained without man, but femaleness cannot be explained without animal. | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1030b28) | |
A reaction: This has to be a key basic distinction in any discussion of properties. But does the difference in explanation entail a difference in fundamental nature? Femaleness is structural. |
10956 | If we only saw bronze circles, would bronze be part of the concept of a circle? [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: Suppose we only ever saw bronze circles - would that make the bronze a formal part of the circle? | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1036b01) | |
A reaction: This is Aristotle spotting the problem of coextensionality (the renate/cordate problem) 2300 years ago. Don't underestimate those Greeks. |
16113 | Potentiality is a principle of change, in another thing, or as another thing [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: Potentiality [dunamis] is a principle of change either (a) for something else or (b) for the thing that it is in qua something else. | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1046a10) | |
A reaction: Gill emphasises that it is partly an active principle of change. It seems like an ability to affect, or to be affected. |
16114 | Active 'dunamis' is best translated as 'power' or 'ability' (rather than 'potentiality') [Aristotle, by Gill,ML] |
Full Idea: When Aristotle uses the word 'dunamis' in the active sense, we might prefer the translation 'power', 'ability', or 'capacity' to 'potentiality'. He uses the same word to indicate both active power and passive responsiveness. | |
From: report of Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], Theta) by Mary Louise Gill - Aristotle on Substance Ch.6 | |
A reaction: This gives licence to a direct link between Aristotle's account of potential and modern ascriptions of powers in scientific essentialism. |
11387 | The main characteristic of the source of change is activity [energeia] [Aristotle, by Politis] |
Full Idea: Aristotle undoubtedly considered the central characteristic of the ultimate cause of change to be activity [energeia]. | |
From: report of Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], Bk 12) by Vassilis Politis - Aristotle and the Metaphysics 8.8 | |
A reaction: Aristotle identifies this, of course, with his 'God', but it strikes me that the word 'power' (as in Molnar) seems to capture Aristotle's concept. We just need some fundamental active force to get the whole shebang going. |
15773 | Actualities are arranged by priority, going back to what initiates process [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: One actuality always has temporal priority over another, going back to that which always, and in a primary way, initiates process. | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1050b05) | |
A reaction: I am not clear from the context whether he is referring to things which have fundamental powers, or whether he is referring to the one great First Cause. |
16753 | Giving the function of a house defines its actuality [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: Those who propose that a house is 'a receptacle to shelter chattels and living beings', or something of the sort, speak of the actuality. | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1043a16) | |
A reaction: This, with Idea 16752, endorses the idea that the function is the essence of something. The eye is natural, the house is an artifact. This seems different from the concept of form implied elsewhere. He says materials of a house are just potential. |
15780 | Potentiality in geometry is metaphorical [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: Potentiality in geometry is spoken of metaphorically. | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1019b31) | |
A reaction: The point here is that if one wanted to give an account of properties in an active way (perhaps in accord with causation, as Shoemaker suggests), then the properties of mathematics could also be included in this Aristotelian way. |
11938 | The Megarans say something is only capable of something when it is actually doing it [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: There is a popular view in Megara, that x is capable of being/doing the F only when it actually is/does the F. So the non-builder is no bearer of a potentiality for building - but only when the builder is engaged in his building. | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1046b28) | |
A reaction: This Megaran view is the extreme denial of dispositions are real features of the world. They seem to reduce to mere descriptions, when the reality is the actual activity itself. Megarans would now be called 'actualists'. |
15766 | Megaran actualism is just scepticism about the qualities of things [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: In the Megaran view, there will be nothing cold or hot or pleasant or perceptible at all unless someone is currently observing it. So this Megaran wisdom turns out to boil down to rehashed Protagoras. | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1047a10) | |
A reaction: I don't think you can defeat the rejection of modal features of reality that easily. The Megarans might, I suppose, be called verificationists. What is the semantic value of a statement about potential? |
15767 | Megaran actualists prevent anything from happening, by denying a capacity for it to happen! [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: I take it that anything deprived of its potential lacks capacity. But then anything not currently happening will lack the capacity to happen. ...Our brilliant Megaran friends will now have done away with all process and generation! | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1047a15) | |
A reaction: The reply, implied in Idea 15490, is that you answer this by examining more closely exactly what is meant by a 'capacity', and showing that it can only boil to down to what is actual. |
11379 | Substance is not a universal, as the former is particular but a universal is shared [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: The substance of each thing is something that is peculiar to each thing, not pertaining to anything else, whereas the universal is something common. Indeed, a thing is said to be a universal just if its nature pertains to a plurality. | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1038b10) | |
A reaction: This should be a warning to those who talk of the 'Aristotelian' view of properties as universals instantiated in the particulars. Once one has pinpointed the substance, the subject of predication, and the essence, no room is left for universals. |
12096 | Universals are indeterminate and only known in potential, because they are general [Aristotle, by Witt] |
Full Idea: The notion of generality provides an explanation for Aristotle's position that the universal - every universal - is indeterminate and, hence, the object of potential knowledge. | |
From: report of Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], univs) by Charlotte Witt - Substance and Essence in Aristotle 5.3 | |
A reaction: [See Idea 12095 for knowledge of potential and actual] Now you're talking! The idea that universals are central to true knowledge seems wildly misguided. All knowledge is rooted in particulars, where the highest certainties are to be found. |
649 | The acquisition of scientific knowledge is impossible without universals [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: The acquisition of scientific knowledge is impossible without universals. | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1086b03) |
12094 | No universals exist separately from particulars [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: No universal exists over and above, and separately from, the particulars. | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1040b27) | |
A reaction: [At last I have found one of Aristotle's most famous ideas!] His hallmark of a universal is that it is found in many particulars, but then we ask whether they are identical (universals) or merely resembling (tropes). |
10948 | Forms are said to be substances to which nothing is prior [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: Suppose that there are certain substances to which neither other substances nor other natures are prior. It is such substances that certain philosophers assert the Forms to be. | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1031a30) | |
A reaction: Then there is the difficulty of explaining 'prior', which presumably must be an objective relation, not a mere priority in human understanding or explanation or definition. |
647 | There is a confusion because Forms are said to be universal, but also some Forms are separable and particular [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: The root problem of the theory of Forms is that they posit Forms that are universal and at the same time Forms that are separable and therefore particular. | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1086a28) |
643 | How can the Forms both be the substance of things and exist separately from them? [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: How can the Forms, while being the substances of things, have being separately from them? | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1080a01) |
633 | If you accept Forms, you must accept the more powerful principle of 'participating' in them [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: If you accept the theory of Forms, you must allow that there is also another more powerful principle. Only thus can you answer the question why something has come to participate, or is participating. | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1075b18) |
16110 | If partaking explains unity, what causes participating, and what is participating? [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: On account of the difficulty [about unity] some philosophers have espoused participation, though this plunges them into difficulties about what the cause of the participation is, or indeed what participating is anyway. | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1045b07) | |
A reaction: The target here is Plato, and I agree with the criticism. Exactly the same problems face those who talk of an object 'instantiating' a property. I have no idea what such a relationship could be. |
9483 | Forms have to be their own paradigms, which seems to fuse the paradigm and the copy [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: The Forms would have to function as paradigms not just for other entities, but also for themselves. ..But this produces an absurd fusion of the paradigm and the copy. | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1079b28) | |
A reaction: A nice succinct statement of the problem of self-predication (which leads to the Third Man regress, if we posit another Form as a paradigm of the Form we are interested in). |
640 | All attempts to prove the Forms are either invalid, or prove Forms where there aren't supposed to be any [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: All methods employed to demonstrate the Forms either cannot be formulated validly, or produce Forms even for those things for which there are not supposed to be any Forms. | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1079a04) |
641 | Are there forms for everything, or for negations, or for destroyed things? [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: The Argument from Sciences produces Forms for every possible object of science! One-over-many arguments produce Forms for negations! The Argument from the Thought of a Perished Object gives Forms for destroyed things! | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1079a07) |
16108 | If men exist by participating in two forms (Animal and Biped), they are plural, not unities [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: Why is man not Animal and Biped together? Then it will not be by participating in Man (or any other unity) that men exist but by doing so in two things, Animal and Biped. Then man would not be a unity but a plurality. | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1045a17) | |
A reaction: This is perhaps Aristotle's deepest metaphysical objection to the whole Plato programme, that it blocks a decent account of the unity of particulars, on which our whole understanding of the world rests. |
4470 | Aristotle is not asserting facts about the location of properties, but about their ontological status [Aristotle, by Moreland] |
Full Idea: The debate between Platonists and Aristotelians about universals is not a debate about the 'location' of the properties, but about the ontological independence of the properties from their instances. | |
From: report of Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1082) by J.P. Moreland - Universals Ch.4 | |
A reaction: Of course, assertions about their location might have strong implications about whether they were ontologically independent. |
16145 | Predications only pick out kinds of things, not things in themselves [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: None of the things predicated in common picks out a this-thing-here, but rather such-and-such a kind. | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1039a01) | |
A reaction: He is in the process of denying that predicates pick out real substances [real being, 'ousia'], but this is clearly aimed at Plato. |
618 | There is no point at all in the theory of Forms unless it contains a principle that produces movement [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: There is no advantage at all in the admission of eternal substances, as in the Theory of Forms, unless there is among them a principle capable of moving something else. | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1071b11) |
642 | What possible contribution can the Forms make to perceptible entities? [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: What possible contribution can the Forms make to perceptible entities? | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1079b08) |
605 | The Forms have to be potentialities, not actual knowledge or movement [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: If there are Forms (as the purely logical thinkers claim), there must be something which is much more knowable than the Form of Knowledge, and something more fully moved than the Form of Movement. The Forms will be mere potentialities. | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1050b32) |
645 | If two is part of three then numbers aren't Forms, because they would all be intermingled [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: On our theory two is part of three….so it will not be possible for a number to be a Form, on pain of one Form's being present in another and all Forms turning out to be parts of some one. | |
From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1082b29) |
7956 | If all and only red things were round things, we would need to specify the 'respect' of the resemblance [Goodman, by Macdonald,C] |
Full Idea: According to Goodman's 'companionship difficulty', resemblance nominalism has a problem if, say, all and only the red things were the round things, because we cannot distinguish the two different respects in which the things resemble one another. | |
From: report of Nelson Goodman (The Structure of Appearance [1951]) by Cynthia Macdonald - Varieties of Things Ch.6 | |
A reaction: Goodman opts for extreme linguististic nominalism in response to this (Idea 7952), whereas Russell opts for a sort of Platonism (4441). The current idea gives Russell a further problem, of needing a universal of the respect of the resemblance. |
7957 | Without respects of resemblance, we would collect blue book, blue pen, red pen, red clock together [Goodman, by Macdonald,C] |
Full Idea: Goodman's 'imperfect community' problem for Resemblance Nominalism says that without mention of respects in which things resemble, we end up with a heterogeneous collection with nothing wholly in common (blue book, blue pen, red pen, red clock). | |
From: report of Nelson Goodman (The Structure of Appearance [1951]) by Cynthia Macdonald - Varieties of Things Ch.6 | |
A reaction: This suggests Wittgenstein's 'family' resemblance as a way out (Idea 4141), but a blue book and a red clock seem totally unrelated. Nice objection! At this point we start to think that the tropes resemble, rather than the objects. |
7952 | If we apply the same word to different things, it is only because we are willing to do so [Goodman, by Macdonald,C] |
Full Idea: Predicate nominalism is the view that what all things to which the same word applies have in common is simply our willingness to apply the same word to them. | |
From: report of Nelson Goodman (The Structure of Appearance [1951], Ch.6) by Cynthia Macdonald - Varieties of Things | |
A reaction: This is Goodman's 'extreme nominalist' position. This seems also to be an anti-realist position, as it denies any 'joints' to nature (Idea 7953). It strikes me as daft. WHY are we willing to apply words in certain ways? |