74 ideas
4194 | Metaphysics is concerned with the fundamental structure of reality as a whole [Lowe] |
Full Idea: Metaphysics is concerned with the fundamental structure of reality as a whole. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.2) | |
A reaction: I think it is vital to hang on to this big definition, focusing on ontology, and not retreat (like Kant) to the epistemological question of how humans happen to see reality, even if we are stuck with being humans. |
4214 | Maybe such concepts as causation, identity and existence are primitive and irreducible [Lowe] |
Full Idea: It may well be that after all our attempts at analysis, we have to accept the notions of causality, identity and existence as being primitive and irreducible. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.191) | |
A reaction: They may be irreducible, but it seems possible that the relationships between them might be revealed (as between Platonic Forms). To exist is to have identity and causal powers? |
4222 | If all that exists is what is being measured, what about the people and instruments doing the measuring? [Lowe] |
Full Idea: If we think, in a positivistic spirit, that only measurements and observations exist, this is strikingly naïve. The scientists and their instruments can't be composed merely of measurements. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.234) | |
A reaction: A strong rebuff to crude positivism and 'operationalism'. Such mistakes are the usual confusion of epistemology and ontology. |
4217 | It is more extravagant, in general, to revise one's logic than to augment one's ontology [Lowe] |
Full Idea: It is more extravagant, in general, to revise one's logic than to augment one's ontology. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.219) | |
A reaction: Meaning there are stronger principles of thought which can trump Ockham's Razor. A few more entities won't hurt. Sound right. |
10373 | Logical form can't dictate metaphysics, as it may propose an undesirable property [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: Logical form should not have the last word in metaphysics, since it might predicate a property that we have theoretical reason to reject. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 1.3.1) | |
A reaction: These kind of warnings need to be sounded all the time, to prevent logicians and language experts from pitching their tents in the middle of metaphysics. They are welcome guests only, |
4229 | An infinite series of tasks can't be completed because it has no last member [Lowe] |
Full Idea: It appears to be impossible to complete an infinite series of tasks, since such a series has, by definition, no last member. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.290) | |
A reaction: This pinpoints the problem. So are there infinite tasks in a paradox of subdivision like the Achilles? |
4240 | It might be argued that mathematics does not, or should not, aim at truth [Lowe] |
Full Idea: It might be argued that mathematics does not, or should not, aim at truth. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.375) | |
A reaction: Intriguing. Sounds wrong to me. At least maths seems to need the idea of the 'correct' answer. If, however, maths is a huge pattern, there is no correctness, just the pattern. We can be wrong, but maths can't be wrong. Ah, I see…! |
4241 | If there are infinite numbers and finite concrete objects, this implies that numbers are abstract objects [Lowe] |
Full Idea: The Peano postulates imply an infinity of numbers, but there are probably not infinitely many concrete objects in existence, so natural numbers must be abstract objects. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.375) | |
A reaction: Presumably they are abstract objects even if they aren't universals. 'Abstract' is an essential term in our ontological vocabulary to cover such cases. Perhaps possible concrete objects are infinite. |
4239 | Nominalists deny abstract objects, because we can have no reason to believe in their existence [Lowe] |
Full Idea: Nominalists tend to deny the existence of abstract objects since, given their purported nature (non-causal), we can have no reason to believe in their existence. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.372) | |
A reaction: A good point. Aristotle worried about the causal inadequacy of the Forms. My mind can conceive of a 'thing' with no causal powers, just sitting there. |
4202 | Change can be of composition (the component parts), or quality (properties), or substance [Lowe] |
Full Idea: There seem to be three kinds of change: compositional change (of component parts), qualitative change (of properties), or substantial change (when underlying essence begins or ceases). | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.59) | |
A reaction: Notice this gives 'components' a more prominent ontological status than usual. Is this computer a component of my study? |
4201 | Four theories of qualitative change are 'a is F now', or 'a is F-at-t', or 'a-at-t is F', or 'a is-at-t F' [Lowe, by PG] |
Full Idea: Qualitative change is seen as either (i) 'Presentism' - 'a is F now', or (ii) 'relational properties' - 'a is F-at-t', or (iii) 'temporal parts' - 'a-at-t is F', or (iv) 'adverbial' - 'a is-a-t F'. | |
From: report of E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.44) by PG - Db (ideas) | |
A reaction: The traditional view would let a stay the same over time, and change its property (ii). Lewis favours (iii). My suspicion is that thinking collapses if you abandon the tradtional view. |
4219 | Numerically distinct events of the same kind (like two battles) can coincide in space and time [Lowe] |
Full Idea: Numerically distinct events of the same kind (like two battles) can plausible coincide in space and time. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.225) | |
A reaction: This is certainly discouraging for anyone who wanted to make events ontologically basic. Physicalist need to be able to individuate events in a reductive way. |
4221 | Maybe modern physics requires an event-ontology, rather than a thing-ontology [Lowe] |
Full Idea: It is sometimes said that modern physics requires us to espouse an event-ontology, rather than a thing-ontology. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.233) | |
A reaction: It has to be a mistake to build our philosophical ontology on current physics, because even the physicists say they don't understand the latter very well. |
4225 | Events are changes in the properties of or relations between things [Lowe] |
Full Idea: My own preference is for a conception of events which reduces them to changes in the properties of or relations between things. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.245) | |
A reaction: Changes of property and changes of relations are two very different things. Is a 'near miss' an event? If so, is any movement an event? If movement is relative, then so are events. |
4220 | Maybe an event is the exemplification of a property at a time [Lowe] |
Full Idea: Maybe an event is the exemplification of a property at a time. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.229) | |
A reaction: What exactly would 'exemplify' mean here? This probably turns out to be circular when you attempt to explain what a property is. |
10367 | There is only one fact - the True [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: It can be argued that if all facts are logically equivalent, then there is only one fact - the True. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 1.1) | |
A reaction: [he cites Davidson's 'Causal Relations', who cites Frege] This is the sort of bizarre stuff you end up with if you start from formal logic and work out to the world, instead of vice versa. |
4196 | The main categories of existence are either universal and particular, or abstract and concrete [Lowe] |
Full Idea: Some metaphysicians think the fundamental categories of existence are universals and particulars, while other prefer the division between abstract and concrete. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.15) | |
A reaction: Interestingly, in trying to choose between these, it is tempting to think about the capacities of the brain. Which is the cart and which is the horse? |
4234 | Trope theory says blueness is a real feature of objects, but not the same as an identical blue found elsewhere [Lowe] |
Full Idea: The trope theorist holds that the blueness of a blue chair really exists as much as the chair, but is not identified with the blueness of anything else, even if it resembles it exactly. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.361) | |
A reaction: You are left with explaining how 'resemblance' works if you cannot spot some 'thing' in common. It is an inviting idea, though, because it avoids the ontological baggage of universals. |
4235 | Maybe a cushion is just a bundle of tropes, such as roundness, blueness and softness [Lowe] |
Full Idea: The trope theorist says that a cushion is just a 'bundle' of tropes, such as roundness, blueness and softness. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.362) | |
A reaction: Certainly if you dispense with the idea of substance (which is clearly bad science even if it is good metaphysics), something like this is what remains of a cushion, though it sounds more epistemological than ontological. Only philosophers care about this |
4236 | Tropes seem to be abstract entities, because they can't exist alone, but must come in bundles [Lowe] |
Full Idea: Tropes seem to be abstract entities because, unlike concrete entities, they are ontologically dependent; ..there are no 'free' tropes, and they must always be bundled with other appropriate tropes to exist. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.367) | |
A reaction: Only a Platonist would think that a universal property could 'exist alone'. I presume Aristotle thought universals were real, though bound up with substances. |
4197 | The category of universals can be sub-divided into properties and relations [Lowe] |
Full Idea: One might want to divide the category of 'universals' into two sub-categories of properties and relations. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.15) | |
A reaction: This means a Platonic form like 'horse' ends up as a cluster of properties and relations. Is a substance not also a universal? |
4232 | Nominalists believe that only particulars exist [Lowe] |
Full Idea: Nominalists believe that only particulars exist. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.352) | |
A reaction: A neat definition. Hence they deny universals. I suspect that nominalism is incoherent. Rational thought seems easy to create with universals, impossible with just particulars. Robotics is nominalist, which is why it will fail. |
4205 | 'Is non-self-exemplifying' is a predicate which cannot denote a property (as it would be a contradiction) [Lowe] |
Full Idea: Not every meaningful predicate expresses an existing property; thus 'is non-self-exemplifying' cannot refer to a property, because the property would contradict the predicate. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.100) | |
A reaction: Needs thought. The example is based on Russell's so-called Barber's Paradox. If it can't be a property, can it be a predicate? |
4233 | If 'blueness' is a set of particulars, there is danger of circularity, or using universals, in identifying the set [Lowe] |
Full Idea: If sets are particulars, a nominalist may say that 'blueness' is a set of particulars, but which set? If the particulars 'are blue' this threatens circularity - though resemblance is usually appealed to to avoid this. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.355) | |
A reaction: This supports my suspicion that nominalism is superficially attractive and 'scientific', but when you dig deep into it the theory won't get off the ground without universals. |
4206 | 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. |
4204 | 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. |
4198 | 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. |
4199 | 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. |
4200 | 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. |
4203 | 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. |
4195 | It is impossible to reach a valid false conclusion from true premises, so reason itself depends on possibility [Lowe] |
Full Idea: Reasoning itself depends upon a grasp of possibilities, because a valid argument is one in which it is not possible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.11) | |
A reaction: A very valuable corrective to my pessimistic view of philosophers' attempts to understand metaphysical necessity. But if we can only grasp natural necessity, then all reason is naturalistic. |
4207 | We might eliminate 'possible' and 'necessary' in favour of quantification over possible worlds [Lowe] |
Full Idea: It may be possible to eliminate the modal operators (in English, 'is possible' and 'is necessary') in favour of quantifier expressions with variables ranging over possible worlds. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.121) | |
A reaction: Hence 'necessary' becomes 'exists/is true in all possible worlds'. Deep problems, but at least we must show that referring to 'possible' worlds isn't a circular explanation of 'is possible'. |
4223 | Unfalsifiability may be a failure in an empirical theory, but it is a virtue in metaphysics [Lowe] |
Full Idea: Although unfalsifiability is probably a defect in scientific hypothesis, because it is deprived of empirical content, it seems rather to be a virtue in a metaphysical hypothesis. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.241) | |
A reaction: Presumably nothing could ever be found to count against a necessary truth. A nice point. 'Find me an instance where 2+2 is not 4'. |
4193 | The behaviour of persons and social groups seems to need rational rather than causal explanation [Lowe] |
Full Idea: There are some entities which exist in time and space (such as persons or social groups) of which the behaviour seems to be subject to rational rather than merely causal explanation. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.2) | |
A reaction: This begs of the question of whether 'rational' can be reduced to causal. We can't manage causal explanations of the very complex, so we use broad-brush second-best explanations? |
4238 | The centre of mass of the solar system is a non-causal abstract object, despite having a location [Lowe] |
Full Idea: The centre of mass of the solar system seems to lack causal powers, and so is an abstract object, even though it has a location and movement. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.368) | |
A reaction: Nice example, with rich ramifications. Abstraction is deeply tied into our understanding of the physical world, and our concept of identity. |
4237 | Concrete and abstract objects are distinct because the former have causal powers and relations [Lowe] |
Full Idea: Concrete objects possess causal powers and relations, but abstract objects are incapable of having causal powers or relations. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.368) | |
A reaction: Is this an observation or a definition? One might claim that an abstraction (such as a political ideal) can acquire causal power through a conscious mnd. |
1748 | Archelaus was the first person to say that the universe is boundless [Archelaus, by Diog. Laertius] |
Full Idea: Archelaus was the first person to say that the universe is boundless. | |
From: report of Archelaus (fragments/reports [c.450 BCE]) by Diogenes Laertius - Lives of Eminent Philosophers 02.Ar.3 |
10359 | In causation there are three problems of relata, and three metaphysical problems [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: The questions about causation concern their relata (in space-time, how fine-grained, how many?) and the metaphysics (distinguish causal sequences from others, the direction of causation, selecting causes among pre-conditions?). | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], Intro) | |
A reaction: A very nice map (which has got me thinking about restructuring this database). I can't think of a better way to do philosophy than this (let's hear it for analysis - but the greatest role models for the approach are Aristotle and Aquinas). |
10372 | Causation may not be transitive; the last event may follow from the first, but not be caused by it [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: It is not clear whether causation is transitive. For example, if a boulder roll's towards a hiker's head, causing the hiker to duck, which causes the hiker to survive, it does not seem that the rolling boulder causes the survival of the hiker. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 1.2) | |
A reaction: Maybe survival is not an event or an effect. How many times have I survived in my life? We could, though, say that the hiker strained a muscle as he or she ducked. But then it is unclear whether the boulder caused the muscle-strain. |
10374 | There are at least ten theories about causal connections [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: Theories of causal connection are: nomological subsumption, statistical correlation, counterfactual dependence, agential manipulability, contiguous change, energy flow, physical processes, property transference, primitivism and eliminativism. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 1.3.1) | |
A reaction: Schaffer reduces these to probability and process. I prefer the latter. The first two are wrong, the third right but superficial, the fourth wrong, the fifth, sixth and seventh on the right lines, the eighth wrong, the ninth tempting, and the last wrong. |
10366 | Causation transcends nature, because absences can cause things [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: The main argument for causation being transcendent (rather than being immanent in nature) is that absences can be involved in causal relations. Thus a rock-climber is caused to survive by not falling. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 1.1) | |
A reaction: I don't like that. The obvious strategy is to redescribe the events. Even being hit with a brick could be described as an 'absence of brick-prevention'. So not being hit by a brick can be described as 'presence of brick prevention'. |
10377 | Causation may not be a process, if a crucial part of the process is 'disconnected' [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: One problem case for the process view of causation is 'disconnection'. If a brick breaks a window by being fired from a catapult, a latch is released which was preventing the catapult from firing, so the 'process' is just internal to the catapult. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 2.1.1) | |
A reaction: Schaffer says the normal reply is to deny that the catch-releasing is genuinely causal. I would have thought we should go more fine-grained, and identify linked components of the causal process. |
10378 | A causal process needs to be connected to the effect in the right way [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: A problem case for the process view of causation is 'misconnection'. A process may be connected to an effect, without being causal, as when someone watches an act of vandalism in dismay. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 2.1.1) | |
A reaction: This is a better objection to the process view than Idea 10377. If I push a window with increasing force until it breaks, the process is continuous, but it suddenly becomes a cause. |
10382 | Causation can't be a process, because a process needs causation as a primitive [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: It might be that if causation is said to be a process, then a process is nothing more than a causal sequence, so that causation is primitive. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 2.1.2) | |
A reaction: This again is tempting (as well as the primitivist view of probabilistic causation). If one tries to define a process as mere chronology, then the causal and accidental are indistinguishable. I take the label 'primitive' to be just our failure. |
4210 | If the concept of a cause says it precedes its effect, that rules out backward causation by definition [Lowe] |
Full Idea: You can't include in your concept of causation a clause stipulating that the cause occurred earlier than the effect, because that would rule out backward causation by definition. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.176) | |
A reaction: It may, though, be the case that backward causes can't occur, and time is essential to causes. The problem is our inability to know this for sure. |
10375 | At least four rivals have challenged the view that causal direction is time direction [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: The traditional view that the direction of causation is the direction of time has been challenged, by the direction of forking, by overdetermination, by independence, and by manipulation, which all seem to be one-directional features. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 1.3.1) | |
A reaction: Personally I incline to the view that time is prior, and fixes the direction of causation. I'm not sure that 'backward causation' can be stated coherently, even if it is metaphysically or naturally possible. |
10389 | Causal order must be temporal, or else causes could be blocked, and time couldn't be explained [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: Reasons for causal order being temporal order are that otherwise the effect might occur but the cause then get prevented, ..and that they must be the same, because the temporal order can only be analysed in terms of the causal order. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 2.2) | |
A reaction: If one took both time and causation as primitive, then the second argument would be void. The first argument, though, sounds pretty overwhelming to me. |
10390 | Causal order is not temporal, because of time travel, and simultanous, joint or backward causes [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: Reasons for denying that causal order is temporal order are that time travel seems possible, that cause and effect can be simultaneous, because joint effects have temporal order without causal connection, and because backward causation may exist. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 2.2) | |
A reaction: The possibility of time travel and backward causation can clearly be doubted, and certainly can't be grounds for one's whole metaphysics. The other two need careful analysis, but I think they can be answered. Causation is temporal. |
10380 | Causation is primitive; it is too intractable and central to be reduced; all explanations require it [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: Primitivism arises from our failure to reduce causation, but also from causation being too central to reduce. The probability and process accounts are said to be inevitably circular, as they cannot be understood without reference to causation. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 2.1.2) | |
A reaction: This is very tempting. The primitive view, though, must deal with the direction problem, which may suggest that time is even more primitive. Can we have a hierarchy of primitiveness? To be alive is to be causal. |
10385 | If causation is just observables, or part of common sense, or vacuous, it can't be primitive [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: The three main objections to causation being primitive are that causation can't be anything more than what we observe, or that such a primitive is too spooky to be acceptable, or that primitivism leads to elimination of causation. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 2.1.2) | |
A reaction: [summarised] I don't like the first (Humean) view. I suspect that anything which we finally decide has to be primitive (time, for example) is going to be left looking 'spooky', and I suspect that eliminativism is just Humeanism in disguise. |
10387 | The notion of causation allows understanding of science, without appearing in equations [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: The concepts of 'event', 'law', 'cause' and 'explanation' are nomic concepts which serve to allow a systematic understanding of science; they do not themselves appear in the equations. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 2.1.2) | |
A reaction: This is a criticism of Russell's attempt to eliminate causation from science. It shows that there has to be something we can call 'metascience', which is the province of philosophers, since scientists don't have much interest in it. |
10388 | Causation is utterly essential for numerous philosophical explanations [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: Causation can't be eliminated if it is needed to explain persistence, explanation, disposition, perception, warrant, action, responsibility, mental functional role, conceptual content, and reference. It's elimination would be catastrophic. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 2.1.2) | |
A reaction: [compressed list] I think I am going to vote for the view that causation is one of the primitives in the metaphysics of nature, so I have to agree with this. Most of the listed items, though, are controversial, so eliminativists are not defeated. |
10384 | If two different causes are possible in one set of circumstances, causation is primitive [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: Causation seems to be primitive if the same laws and patterns of events might embody three different possible causes, as when two magicians cast the same successful spell, each with a 50% chance of success, and who was successful is unclear. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 2.1.2) | |
A reaction: I'm cautious when the examples involve magic. It implies that the process that leads to the result will be impossible to observe, but if magic never really happens, then the patterns of events will always be different. |
10386 | If causation is primitive, it can be experienced in ourselves, or inferred as best explanation [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: The view that causation is primitive can be defended against Humean critics by saying that causation can be directly observed in the will or our bodies, or that it can be inferred as the best explanation. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 2.1.2) | |
A reaction: I like both views, and have just converted myself to the primitivist view of causation! I can't know the essence of a tree, because I am not a tree, but I can know the essence of causation. The Greek fascination with explaining movement is linked. |
4209 | The theories of fact causation and event causation are both worth serious consideration [Lowe] |
Full Idea: The theories of fact causation and event causation are both worth serious consideration. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.173) | |
A reaction: This is slippery ground because both 'facts' and 'events' have uncertain ontological status, and seem partly conventional rather than natural. Events might be natural surges or transformations of energy? |
4215 | It seems proper to say that only substances (rather than events) have causal powers [Lowe] |
Full Idea: It seems proper to say that events of themselves possess no causal powers; only persisting objects (individual substances) possess causal powers. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.211) | |
A reaction: This requires events to be reduced to substances, which invites Aristotle's question of where the movement comes from. In physcis, 'energy' is the key concept. |
10361 | Events are fairly course-grained (just saying 'hello'), unlike facts (like saying 'hello' loudly) [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: Events are relatively coarse-grained, unlike facts; so the event of John's saying 'hello' seems to be the same event as John's saying 'hello' loudly, while they seem to be different facts. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 1) | |
A reaction: The example seems good support for facts, since saying 'hello' loudly could have quite different effects from just saying 'hello'. I also incline temperamentally towards a fine-grained account, because it is more reductivist. |
10360 | Causal relata are events - or facts, features, tropes, states, situations or aspects [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: The standard view make causal relata events (Davidson, Kim, Lewis), but there is considerable support for facts (Bennett, Mellor), and occasional support for features (Dretske), tropes (Campbell), states of affairs (Armstrong), and situations and aspects. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 1) | |
A reaction: An event is presumed to be concrete, while a fact is more abstract (a proposition, perhaps). I'm always drawn to 'processes' (because they are good for discussing the mind), so an event, as a sort of natural process, looks good. |
10362 | One may defend three or four causal relata, as in 'c causes e rather than e*' [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: The view that there are two causal relata is widely assumed but seldom defended. But the account based on 'effectual difference' says the form is 'c causes e rather than e*'. One might defend four relata, in 'c rather than c* causes e rather than e*'. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 1) | |
A reaction: [compressed] This doesn't sound very plausible to me. How do you decide which is e*? If I lob a brick into the crowd, it hits Jim rather than - who? |
10368 | If causal relata must be in nature and fine-grained, neither facts nor events will do [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: Theorists who reject both events and facts as causal relata do so because the relata must be immanent in nature, and thus not facts, but also fine-grained and thus not events. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 1.2) | |
A reaction: Kim, however, offers a fine-grained account of events (as |
10383 | The relata of causation (such as events) need properties as explanation, which need causation! [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: The primitivist about causation might say that the notion of an event (or other relata) cannot be understood without reference to causation, because properties themselves are individuated by their causal role. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 2.1.2) | |
A reaction: Having enthusiastically embraced the causal view of properties (see Shoemaker and Ellis), I suddenly realise that I seem required to embrace primitivism about causation, which I hadn't anticipated! I've no immediate problem with that. |
4211 | Causal overdetermination is either actual overdetermination, or pre-emption, or the fail-safe case [Lowe] |
Full Idea: In causation there is 'overdetermination' (c and d occurred, and were both sufficient for e), 'pre-emption' (c and d occurred, and d would have stepped in if c hadn't), or 'fail-safe' (if c hadn't occurred, d would have occurred and done it). | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.179) | |
A reaction: Two safety nets together, two safety nets spaced apart, or a second net which pops in if the first breaks. Nice distinctions. |
10393 | Our selection of 'the' cause is very predictable, so must have a basis [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: The main argument against saying that there is no basis for selecting the one cause of an event is that our selections are too predictable to be without a basis. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 2.3) | |
A reaction: The problem is that we CAN, if we wish, whimsically pick out any pre-condition of an event for discussion (e.g. the railways before WW1). I would say that sensitivity to nature leads us to a moderately correct selection of 'the' cause. |
10394 | Selecting 'the' cause must have a basis; there is no causation without such a selection [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: Another argument against the view that there is no basis for selecting 'the' cause is that we have no concept of causation without such a selection. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 2.3) | |
A reaction: Good. Otherwise we could only state the conditions preceding an event, and then every event that occurred at any given moment in a region would have the same cause. How can 'the' cause be necessary, and yet capricious? |
10376 | The actual cause may make an event less likely than a possible more effective cause [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: If Pam threw the brick that broke the window, then Bob (who refrained) might be a more reliable vandal, so that Pam's throw might have made the shattering less likely, so probability-raising is not necessary for causation. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 2.1) | |
A reaction: That objection looks pretty conclusive to me. I take the probabilistic view to be a non-starter. |
10381 | All four probability versions of causation may need causation to be primitive [Schaffer,J] |
Full Idea: All four probability versions of causation may need causation to be primitive: nomological - to distinguish laws from generalizations; statistical - to decide background; counterfactual - decide background; agent intervention - to understand intervention. | |
From: Jonathan Schaffer (The Metaphysics of Causation [2007], 2.1.2) | |
A reaction: I don't need much convincing that the probabilistic view is wrong. To just accept causation as primitive seems an awful defeat for philosophy. We should be able to characterise it, even if we cannot know its essence. |
4213 | Causation may be instances of laws (seen either as constant conjunctions, or as necessities) [Lowe] |
Full Idea: Causation relations between events may an instance of a causal law, with laws either interpreted as constant conjunctions (Hume), or as necessitation among universals (Armstrong). | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.190) | |
A reaction: Hume's version is a thin idea of a law, but we can dream about the metaphysical status of laws, even if we don't know much about them. Lowe says a cause without a law is perfectly intelligible. |
4212 | Hume showed that causation could at most be natural necessity, never metaphysical necessity [Lowe] |
Full Idea: One thing Hume has taught us is that the necessity which causation involves is at most 'natural' or 'physical' necessity, not metaphysical necessity. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.182) | |
A reaction: Given Hume's epistemological scepticism, I don't think he would claim to have shown such a thing. See G.Strawson's book. Metaphysical necessity of causation is possible, but unknowable. |
14581 | The normative view says laws show the natural behaviour of natural kind members [Lowe, by Mumford/Anjum] |
Full Idea: For Lowe law statements are in a sense about what 'ought' to be the case. The 'ought' is not an explicitly moral or anthropomorphic one but instead tells us what is the natural behaviour of kind members. | |
From: report of E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002]) by S.Mumford/R.Lill Anjum - Getting Causes from Powers 8.6 | |
A reaction: This is the 'normative' view of laws (as opposed to the intentional, dispositional, or regularity accounts). They cite Lowe 1989 Ch.8. The obvious immediate problem is things which evolved for one purpose and end up being used for another. |
4208 | 'If he wasn't born he wouldn't have died' doesn't mean birth causes death, so causation isn't counterfactual [Lowe] |
Full Idea: Counterfactual analyses of event causation don't seem to work, because 'if Napoleon hadn't been born he wouldn't have died' is true, but doesn't mean his birth caused his death. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.161) | |
A reaction: Nice counterexample, which looks pretty conclusive. Birth makes death possible; it creates the necessary conditions within which it can be caused. |
4224 | If motion is change of distance between objects, it involves no intrinsic change in the objects [Lowe] |
Full Idea: If motion just is change of distance between two objects, it does not involve any kind of intrinsic change in the objects in question. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.242) | |
A reaction: It sound respectably relativistic, but I doubt the definition. x is moving relative to y, then y attains x's velocity, so x ceases to move? Maybe. |
4227 | Surfaces, lines and points are not, strictly speaking, parts of space, but 'limits', which are abstract [Lowe] |
Full Idea: Surfaces, lines and points are not, strictly speaking, parts of space at all, but just 'limits' of certain kinds, and as such 'abstract' entities. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.254) | |
A reaction: This is fairly crucial when dealing with Zeno's paradoxes. How many points in a line? How long to get through a point? |
4228 | If space is entirely relational, what makes a boundary, or a place unoccupied by physical objects? [Lowe] |
Full Idea: If space does not exist at all, but is only relations between objects, what could one possibly mean by saying that there is a place which is unoccupied by any material object? And what determines whether space is bounded? | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.264) | |
A reaction: Correct. People who assert that space is only relational have been misled by what we can know about space, not what it is. |
5989 | Archelaus said life began in a primeval slime [Archelaus, by Schofield] |
Full Idea: Archelaus wrote that life on Earth began in a primeval slime. | |
From: report of Archelaus (fragments/reports [c.450 BCE]) by Malcolm Schofield - Archelaus | |
A reaction: This sounds like a fairly clearcut assertion of the production of life by evolution. Darwin's contribution was to propose the mechanism for achieving it. We should honour the name of Archelaus for this idea. |