|
14193
|
'Substance theorists' take modal properties as primitive, without structure, just falling under a sortal [Paul,LA]
|
|
Full Idea:
Some deep essentialists resist the need to explain the structure under de re modal properties, taking them as primitive. One version (which we can call 'substance theory') takes them to fall under a sortal concept, with no further explanation.
|
|
From:
L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
A very helpful identification of what Wiggins stands for, and why I disagree with him. The whole point of essences is to provide a notion that fits in with sciences, which means they must have an explanatory role, which needs structures.
|
|
14195
|
If an object's sort determines its properties, we need to ask what determines its sort [Paul,LA]
|
|
Full Idea:
If the substance essentialist holds that the sort an object belongs to determines its de re modal properties (rather than the other way round), then he needs to give an (ontological, not conceptual) explanation of what determines an object's sort.
|
|
From:
L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
See Idea 14193 for 'substance essentialism'. I find it quite incredible that anyone could think that a thing's sort could determine its properties, rather than the other way round. Even if sortals are conventional, they are not arbitrary.
|
|
14196
|
Substance essentialism says an object is multiple, as falling under various different sortals [Paul,LA]
|
|
Full Idea:
The explanation of material constitution given by substance essentialism is that there are multiple objects. A person is essentially human-shaped (falling under the human sort), while their hunk of tissue is accidentally human-shaped (as tissue).
|
|
From:
L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
At this point sortal essentialism begins to look crazy. Persons are dubious examples (with sneaky dualism involved). A bronze statue is essentially harder to dent than a clay one, because of its bronze. If you remake it of clay, it isn't the same statue.
|
|
14190
|
Deep essentialist objects have intrinsic properties that fix their nature; the shallow version makes it contextual [Paul,LA]
|
|
Full Idea:
Essentialism says that objects have their properties essentially. 'Deep' essentialists take the (nontrivial) essential properties of an object to determine its nature. 'Shallow' essentialists substitute context-dependent truths for the independent ones.
|
|
From:
L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
If the deep essence determines a things nature, we should not need to say 'nontrivial'. This is my bete noire, the confusion of essential properties with necessary ones, where necessary properties (or predicates, at least) can indeed be trivial.
|
|
15643
|
Nominal essence mistakenly gives equal weight to all underlying properties that produce appearances [Eagle]
|
|
Full Idea:
Nominal essence does not allow for gradations in significance for the underlying properties. Those are all essential for the object behaving as it observably does, and they must all be given equal weight when deciding what the object does.
|
|
From:
Antony Eagle (Locke on Essences and Kinds [2005], IV)
|
|
A reaction:
This is where 'scientific' essentialism comes in. If we take one object, or one kind of object, in isolation, Eagle is right. When we start to compare, and to set up controlled conditions tests, we can dig into the 'gradations' he cares about.
|
|
14189
|
'Modal realists' believe in many concrete worlds, 'actualists' in just this world, 'ersatzists' in abstract other worlds [Paul,LA]
|
|
Full Idea:
A 'modal realist' believes that there are many concrete worlds, while the 'actualist' believes in only one concrete world, the actual world. The 'ersatzist' is an actualist who takes nonactual possible worlds and their contents to be abstracta.
|
|
From:
L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
My view is something like that modal realism is wrong, and actualism is right, and possible worlds (if they really are that useful) are convenient abstract fictions, constructed (if we have any sense) out of the real possibilities in the actual world.
|
|
20508
|
How people vote should be on public record, so they can be held accountable [Mill, by Wolff,J]
|
|
Full Idea:
Mill believed in an open vote. People should be held accountable for how they vote, and therefore it should be a matter of public record.
|
|
From:
report of John Stuart Mill (Representative Government [1861]) by Jonathan Wolff - An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Rev) 3 'Representative'
|
|
A reaction:
Nowadays it is a mantra that voting should be secret, because coercion is an obvious problem, but MPs vote publicly, and are held accountable for their voting records. People like the mafia seem to make open public voting impossible.
|
|
20504
|
People can only participate in decisions in small communities, so representatives are needed [Mill]
|
|
Full Idea:
Since all cannot, in a community exceeding a single small town, participate personally in any but some very minor portions of the public business, it follows that the ideal type of a perfect government must be representative.
|
|
From:
John Stuart Mill (Representative Government [1861], p.217-8), quoted by Jonathan Wolff - An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Rev) 4 'Representative'
|
|
A reaction:
Wolff offers Mill as the principal spokesman for representative democracy. It is not only the difficulty of achieving participation, but also the slowness of decision-making. Modern technology may be changing all of this.
|