Combining Texts

Ideas for 'works', 'A Survey of Metaphysics' and 'Philosophy of Mathematics'

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

display all the ideas for this combination of texts


10 ideas

9. Objects / A. Existence of Objects / 1. Physical Objects
The notion of 'object' is at least partially structural and mathematical [Shapiro]
     Full Idea: The very notion of 'object' is at least partially structural and mathematical.
     From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 8.1)
     A reaction: [In the context, Shapiro clearly has physical objects in mind] This view seems to fit with Russell's 'relational' view of the physical world, though Russell rejected structuralism in mathematics. I take abstraction to be part of perception.
9. Objects / A. Existence of Objects / 6. Nihilism about Objects
Conventionalists see the world as an amorphous lump without identities, but are we part of the lump? [Lowe]
     Full Idea: For the conventionalist the world is doomed to merge into an amorphous lump with no real individuality or differentiation, ..but we can hardly make our own identity in the world in the way we are supposed to conventionally create identity for objects.
     From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.113)
     A reaction: Very nice argument! We need to 'cut nature at the joints' (Plato), and one joint is screamingly obvious - that between observer and world. You could try denying this, but it would be a bizarre view.
9. Objects / B. Unity of Objects / 3. Unity Problems / c. Statue and clay
Statues can't survive much change to their shape, unlike lumps of bronze, which must retain material [Lowe]
     Full Idea: A statue is a kind of object which cannot survive much change to its shape, unlike a lump of bronze, which cannot survive any change to its material composition.
     From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.70)
     A reaction: Also the statue could survive being hollowed out, changing its material composition. Hence a statue is not just a lump of bronze, but we knew that.
9. Objects / B. Unity of Objects / 3. Unity Problems / e. Vague objects
A blurry border is still a border [Shapiro]
     Full Idea: A blurry border is still a border.
     From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 8.3)
     A reaction: This remark deserves to be quoted in almost every area of philosophy, against those who attack a concept by focusing on its vague edges. Philosophers should focus on central cases, not borderline cases (though the latter may be of interest).
9. Objects / C. Structure of Objects / 2. Hylomorphism / a. Hylomorphism
The unmoved mover and the soul show Aristotelian form as the ultimate mereological atom [Aristotle, by Koslicki]
     Full Idea: Aristotle's discussion of the unmoved mover and of the soul confirms the suspicion that form, when it is not thought of as the object represented in a definition, plays the role of the ultimate mereological atom within his system.
     From: report of Aristotle (works [c.330 BCE]) by Kathrin Koslicki - The Structure of Objects 6.6
     A reaction: Aristotle is concerned with which things are 'divisible', and he cites these two examples as indivisible, but they may be too unusual to offer an actual theory of how Aristotle builds up wholes from atoms. He denies atoms in matter.
9. Objects / C. Structure of Objects / 2. Hylomorphism / d. Form as unifier
The 'form' is the recipe for building wholes of a particular kind [Aristotle, by Koslicki]
     Full Idea: Thus in Aristotle we may think of an object's formal components as a sort of recipe for how to build wholes of that particular kind.
     From: report of Aristotle (works [c.330 BCE]) by Kathrin Koslicki - The Structure of Objects 7.2.5
     A reaction: In the elusive business of pinning down what Aristotle means by the crucial idea of 'form', this analogy strikes me as being quite illuminating. It would fit DNA in living things, and the design of an artifact.
9. Objects / E. Objects over Time / 9. Ship of Theseus
If old parts are stored and then appropriated, they are no longer part of the original (which is the renovated ship). [Lowe]
     Full Idea: The parts of a ship in a warehouse belong to no ship at all, ..and once they are appropriated by another ship they cease to be parts of the original, ..so it seems that the renovated ship (not the reconstruction) is identified with the original.
     From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.31)
     A reaction: The parts in the warehouse could belong to the original (they might even labelled), but assigning them to a new ship does indeed look like a crucial break in the continuity.
If 5% replacement preserves a ship, we can replace 4% and 4% again, and still retain the ship [Lowe]
     Full Idea: If we say that up to 5% of a ship's parts can be replaced without the ship ceasing to exist, we could replace 4% and then 4% again, and it would retain its identity, if identity is transitive.
     From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.26)
     A reaction: One suspected that all attempts at precision with the ship of Theseus were doomed, but this nicely demonstrates it.
A renovation or a reconstruction of an original ship would be accepted, as long as the other one didn't exist [Lowe]
     Full Idea: If a ship is renovated without reconstruction of original parts, we happily identify the renovation with the original; if there was a reconstruction without the renovated version, we would identify the reconstruction with the original.
     From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.27)
     A reaction: This really shakes our belief in identity as a natural rather than mental phenomenon. The existence of clones undermines our normal idea of personal identity.
9. Objects / F. Identity among Objects / 7. Indiscernible Objects
Identity of Indiscernibles (same properties, same thing) ) is not Leibniz's Law (same thing, same properties) [Lowe]
     Full Idea: The Identity of Indiscernibles (no two objects can possess exactly the same properties) is not the same as Leibniz's Law (what is true of a thing is true of what is identical with that thing).
     From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.62)
     A reaction: Two things can't be the same because we can't discern the difference, which may be our inadequacy. But if they actually have identical properties, it is hard to see how they could be different. A universe with just two perfect spheres is couterexample.