|
15312
|
We get the idea of power by abstracting from ropes, magnets and electric shocks [Priestley]
|
|
Full Idea:
A rope sustains weight, a magnet attracts iron, a charged electrical jar gives a shock, and from these and other similar observations, we get the idea of power, universally and abstractly considered.
|
|
From:
Joseph Priestley (Theological and other works [1790], p.191), quoted by Harré,R./Madden,E.H. - Causal Powers 9.II.B
|
|
A reaction:
I agree with this, in that we appear to be observing powers directly, and are not observing something which can then be reduced to non-powers. Nature just can't be a set of inert structures, with forces 'imposed' on them.
|
|
5492
|
How can essences generate the right powers to vary with distance between objects? [Armstrong]
|
|
Full Idea:
In Newtonian physics the distance between two objects determines the attractive forces between them, but then the objects will have to be sensitive to the distance, in order to 'know' what forces to generate; but distance isn't a causal power.
|
|
From:
David M. Armstrong (Two Problems for Essentialism [2001], p.170)
|
|
A reaction:
Ellis replies that he is not troubled, because he believes in essential properties which are separate from their causal roles. Indeed, how else could you explain their causal roles? Still, distance must be mentioned when explaining gravity.
|
|
15311
|
Attraction or repulsion are not imparted to matter, but actually constitute it [Priestley]
|
|
Full Idea:
Attraction or repulsion appear to me not to be properly what is imparted to matter, but what really makes it what it is, in so much that, without it, it would be nothing at all.
|
|
From:
Joseph Priestley (Theological and other works [1790], p.237), quoted by Harré,R./Madden,E.H. - Causal Powers 9.II.B
|
|
A reaction:
This is music to the ears of anyone who thinks that powers are the fundamentals of nature (like me).
|