|
5468
|
Properties are 'dispositional', or 'categorical' (the latter as 'block' or 'intrinsic' structures) [Ellis, by PG]
|
|
Full Idea:
'Dispositional' properties involve behaviour, and 'categorical properties' are structures in two or more dimensions. 'Block' structures (e.g. molecules) depend on other things, and 'instrinsic' structures (e.g. fields) involve no separate parts.
|
|
From:
report of Brian Ellis (The Philosophy of Nature: new essentialism [2002], Ch.4) by PG - Db (ideas)
|
|
A reaction:
This is an essentialist approach to properties, and sounds correct to me. The crucial preliminary step to understanding properties is to eliminate secondary qualities (e.g. colour), which are not properties at all, and cause confusion.
|
|
5469
|
The passive view of nature says categorical properties are basic, but others say dispositions [Ellis]
|
|
Full Idea:
'Categorical realism' is the most widely accepted theory of dispositional properties, because passivists can accept it, ..that is, that dispositions supervene on categorical properties; ..the opposite would imply nature is active and reactive.
|
|
From:
Brian Ellis (The Philosophy of Nature: new essentialism [2002], Ch.4)
|
|
A reaction:
Essentialists believe 'the opposite' - i.e. that dispositions are fundamental, and hence that the essence of nature is active. See 5468 for explanations of the distinctions. I am with the essentialists on this one.
|
|
7934
|
Tropes are abstract (two can occupy the same place), but not universals (they have locations) [Macdonald,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
Tropes are abstract entities, at least in the sense that more than one can be in the same place at the same time (e.g. redness and roundness). But they are not universals, because they have unique and particular locations.
|
|
From:
Cynthia Macdonald (Varieties of Things [2005], Ch.3)
|
|
A reaction:
I'm uneasy about the reification involved in this kind of talk. Does a coin possess a thing called 'roundness', which then has to be individuated, identified and located? I am drawn to the two extreme views, and suspicious of compromise.
|
|
7972
|
Tropes are abstract particulars, not concrete particulars, so the theory is not nominalist [Macdonald,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
Trope 'Nominalism' is not a version of nominalism, because tropes are abstract particulars, rather than concrete particulars. Of course, a trope account of the relations between particulars and their properties has ramifications for concrete particulars.
|
|
From:
Cynthia Macdonald (Varieties of Things [2005], Ch.6 n16)
|
|
A reaction:
Cf. Idea 7971. At this point the boundary between nominalist and realist theories seems to blur. Possibly that is bad news for tropes. Not many dilemmas can be solved by simply blurring the boundary.
|
|
7960
|
Trope Nominalism is the only nominalism to introduce new entities, inviting Ockham's Razor [Macdonald,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
Of all the nominalist solutions, Trope Nominalism is the only one that tries to solve the problem at issue by introducing entities; all the others try to get by with concrete particulars and sets of them. This might invite Ockham's Razor.
|
|
From:
Cynthia Macdonald (Varieties of Things [2005], Ch.6)
|
|
A reaction:
We could reply that tropes are necessities. The issue seems to be a key one, which is whether our fundamental onotology should include properties (in some form or other). I am inclined to exclude them (Ideas 3322, 3906, 4029).
|