|
14664
|
Necessary beings (numbers, properties, sets, propositions, states of affairs, God) exist in all possible worlds [Plantinga]
|
|
Full Idea:
A 'necessary being' is one that exists in every possible world; and only some objects - numbers, properties, pure sets, propositions, states of affairs, God - have this distinction.
|
|
From:
Alvin Plantinga (Actualism and Possible Worlds [1976], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
This a very odd list, though it is fairly orthodox among philosophers trained in modern modal logic. At the very least it looks rather parochial to me.
|
|
14666
|
Socrates is a contingent being, but his essence is not; without Socrates, his essence is unexemplified [Plantinga]
|
|
Full Idea:
Socrates is a contingent being; his essence, however, is not. Properties, like propositions and possible worlds, are necessary beings. If Socrates had not existed, his essence would have been unexemplified, but not non-existent.
|
|
From:
Alvin Plantinga (Actualism and Possible Worlds [1976], 4)
|
|
A reaction:
This is a distinctive Plantinga view, of which I can make little sense. I take it that Socrates used to have an essence. Being dead, the essence no longer exists, but when we talk about Socrates it is largely this essence to which we refer. OK?
|
|
14662
|
Possible worlds clarify possibility, propositions, properties, sets, counterfacts, time, determinism etc. [Plantinga]
|
|
Full Idea:
The idea of possible worlds has delivered insights on logical possibility (de dicto and de re), propositions, properties and sets, counterfactuals, time and temporal relations, causal determinism, the ontological argument, and the problem of evil.
|
|
From:
Alvin Plantinga (Actualism and Possible Worlds [1976], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
This date (1976) seems to be the high-water mark for enthusiasm about possible worlds. I suppose if we just stick to 'insights' rather than 'answers' then the big claim might still be acceptable. Which problems are created by possible worlds?
|
|
16472
|
Plantinga's actualism is nominal, because he fills actuality with possibilia [Stalnaker on Plantinga]
|
|
Full Idea:
Plantinga's critics worry that the metaphysics is actualist in name only, since it is achieved only by populating the actual world with entities whose nature is explained in terms of merely possible things that would exemplify them if anything did.
|
|
From:
comment on Alvin Plantinga (Actualism and Possible Worlds [1976]) by Robert C. Stalnaker - Mere Possibilities 4.4
|
|
A reaction:
Plantinga seems a long way from the usual motivation for actualism, which is probably sceptical empiricism, and building a system on what is smack in front of you. Possibilities have to be true, though. That's why you need dispositions in actuality.
|
|
23044
|
All knowledge rests on a fundamental unity between the knower and what is known [Green,TH, by Muirhead]
|
|
Full Idea:
All knowledge is seen on ultimate analysis to rest upon the idea of a fundamental unity between subject and object, between the knower and that which there is to be known.
|
|
From:
report of T.H. Green (works [1875]) by John H. Muirhead - The Service of the State III
|
|
A reaction:
I don't really understand this thought, but I think it embodies the essence of Hegelian idealism. If I know a tree in the wood, any 'unity' between us strikes as merely imaginary. If the tree isn't separate, what does 'knowing' it mean?
|
|
16469
|
Plantinga has domains of sets of essences, variables denoting essences, and predicates as functions [Plantinga, by Stalnaker]
|
|
Full Idea:
The domains in Plantinga's interpretation of Kripke's semantics are sets of essences, and the values of variables are essences. The values of predicates have to be functions from possible worlds to essences.
|
|
From:
report of Alvin Plantinga (Actualism and Possible Worlds [1976]) by Robert C. Stalnaker - Mere Possibilities 4.4
|
|
A reaction:
I begin to think this is quite nice, as long as one doesn't take the commitment to the essences too seriously. For 'essence' read 'minimal identity'? But I take essences to be more than minimal, so use identities (which Kripke does?).
|
|
16470
|
Plantinga's essences have their own properties - so will have essences, giving a hierarchy [Stalnaker on Plantinga]
|
|
Full Idea:
For Plantinga, essences are entities in their own right and will have properties different from what instantiates them. Hence he will need individual essences of individual essences, distinct from the essences. I see no way to avoid a hierarchy of them.
|
|
From:
comment on Alvin Plantinga (Actualism and Possible Worlds [1976]) by Robert C. Stalnaker - Mere Possibilities 4.4
|
|
A reaction:
This sounds devastating for Plantinga, but it is a challenge for traditional Aristotelians. Only a logician suffers from a hierarchy, but a scientist might have to live with an essence, which contains a super-essence.
|
|
14663
|
Are propositions and states of affairs two separate things, or only one? I incline to say one [Plantinga]
|
|
Full Idea:
Are there two sorts of thing, propositions and states of affairs, or only one? I am inclined to the former view on the ground that propositions have a property, truth or falsehood, not had by states of affairs.
|
|
From:
Alvin Plantinga (Actualism and Possible Worlds [1976], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
Might a proposition be nothing more than an assertion that a state of affairs obtains? It would then pass his test. The idea that a proposition is a complex of facts in the external world ('Russellian' propositions?) quite baffles me.
|
|
23223
|
The word 'respect' ranges from mere non-interference to the highest levels of reverence [Blackburn]
|
|
Full Idea:
The word 'respect' seems to span a spectrum from simply not interfering, passing by on the other side, through admiration, right up to reverence and deference. This makes it uniquely well placed for ideological purposes.
|
|
From:
Simon Blackburn (Religion and Respect [2005], p.2)
|
|
A reaction:
Most people understand the world perfectly well, but only when they fully understand the context. I've taken to distinguishing conditional from unconditional forms of respect. Everyone is entitled to the unconditional form, which has limits.
|
|
23045
|
Politics is compromises, which seem supported by a social contract, but express the will of no one [Green,TH]
|
|
Full Idea:
Where laws and institutions are apparently the work of deliberate volition, they are in reality the result of a compromise, which while by a kind of social contract it has the acquiescence of all, expresses the will of none.
|
|
From:
T.H. Green (works [1875]), quoted by John H. Muirhead - The Service of the State III
|
|
A reaction:
Politicians who claim to be enacting the 'will of the people' (e.g. when they won a referendum 52-48) are simply lying. Committees usually end up enacting one person's will, but often without realising what has happened.
|
|
23040
|
If something develops, its true nature is embodied in its end [Green,TH]
|
|
Full Idea:
To anyone who understands a process of development, the result being developed is the reality; and it is its ability to become this that the subject undergoing development has its true nature.
|
|
From:
T.H. Green (works [1875], iii: 224), quoted by John H. Muirhead - The Service of the State II
|
|
A reaction:
Although this contains the dubious Hegelian idea that development tends towards some 'end', presented as fixed and final, it still seems important that anything accepted as a 'development' is the expression of some natural potential.
|
|
23041
|
God is the realisation of the possibilities of each man's self [Green,TH]
|
|
Full Idea:
God is identical with the self of every man in the sense of being the realisation of its determinate possibilities.…In being conscious of himself man is conscious of God and thus knows that God is, but only in so far as he knows what he himself really is.
|
|
From:
T.H. Green (works [1875], iii:226-7), quoted by John H. Muirhead - The Service of the State II
|
|
A reaction:
Does this, by the transitivity of identity, imply the identity of all individual men? Do we all contain identical possibilities, which converge on a unified concept of God? I always take the monotheistic God to far exceed mere human possibilities.
|