display all the ideas for this combination of texts
3 ideas
21534 | The only thing we can say about relations is that they relate [Russell] |
Full Idea: It may be doubted whether relations can be adequately characterised by anything except the fact that they relate. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Meinong on Complexes and Assumptions [1904], p.27) | |
A reaction: We can characterise a rope that ties things together. If I say 'stand to his left', do I assume the existence of one of the relata and the relation, but without the second relata? How about 'you two stand over there, with him on the left'? |
21540 | Relational propositions seem to be 'about' their terms, rather than about the relation [Russell] |
Full Idea: In some sense which it would be very desirable to define, a relational proposition seems to be 'about' its terms, in a way in which it is not about the relation. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Meinong on Complexes and Assumptions [1904], p.53) | |
A reaction: Identifying how best to specify what a proposition is actually 'about' is a very illuminating mode of enquiry. You can't define 'underneath' without invoking a pair of objects to illustrate it. A proposition can still focus on the relation. |
18451 | The presence of the incorporeal is only known by certain kinds of disposition [Porphyry] |
Full Idea: Being everywhere and nowhere, the incorporeal, wherever it happens to be, betrays its presence only by a certain kind of disposition. | |
From: Porphyry (Launching Points to the Realm of the Mind [c.280], 4Enn3 21(20)) | |
A reaction: There is a mystical or dualist view of fundamental powers, as the spiritual engine which drives passive physical nature. It's rubbish of course, but if powers are primitive in a naturalistic theory, it is not a view which can be refuted. |