19693
|
There is practical wisdom (for action), and theoretical wisdom (for deep understanding) [Aristotle, by Whitcomb]
|
|
Full Idea:
Aristotle takes wisdom to come in two forms, the practical and the theoretical, the former of which is good judgement about how to act, and the latter of which is deep knowledge or understanding.
|
|
From:
report of Aristotle (works [c.330 BCE]) by Dennis Whitcomb - Wisdom Intro
|
|
A reaction:
The interesting question is then whether the two are connected. One might be thoroughly 'sensible' about action, without counting as 'wise', which seems to require a broader view of what is being done. Whitcomb endorses Aristotle on this idea.
|
8200
|
Aristotelian definitions aim to give the essential properties of the thing defined [Aristotle, by Quine]
|
|
Full Idea:
A real definition, according to the Aristotelian tradition, gives the essence of the kind of thing defined. Man is defined as a rational animal, and thus rationality and animality are of the essence of each of us.
|
|
From:
report of Aristotle (works [c.330 BCE]) by Willard Quine - Vagaries of Definition p.51
|
|
A reaction:
Compare Idea 4385. Personally I prefer the Aristotelian approach, but we may have to say 'We cannot identify the essence of x, and so x cannot be defined'. Compare 'his mood was hard to define' with 'his mood was hostile'.
|
13282
|
Aristotle relativises the notion of wholeness to different measures [Aristotle, by Koslicki]
|
|
Full Idea:
Aristotle proposes to relativise unity and plurality, so that a single object can be both one (indivisible) and many (divisible) simultaneously, without contradiction, relative to different measures. Wholeness has degrees, with the strength of the unity.
|
|
From:
report of Aristotle (works [c.330 BCE]) by Kathrin Koslicki - The Structure of Objects 7.2.12
|
|
A reaction:
[see Koslicki's account of Aristotle for details] As always, the Aristotelian approach looks by far the most promising. Simplistic mechanical accounts of how parts make wholes aren't going to work. We must include the conventional and conceptual bit.
|
13331
|
Part and whole contribute asymmetrically to one another, so must differ [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
The whole identity of a part is relevant to whether it is a part, but the identity of the whole makes a part a part. The whole part belongs to the whole as a part. The standard account in terms of time-slices fails to respect this part/whole asymmetry.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Things and Their Parts [1999], §2)
|
|
A reaction:
Hard to follow, but I think the asymmetry is that the wholeness of the part contributes to the wholeness of the whole, while the wholeness of the whole contributes to the parthood of the part. Wholeness does different jobs in different directions. OK?
|
13332
|
Hierarchical set membership models objects better than the subset or aggregate relations do [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is the hierarchical conception of sets and their members, rather than the linear conception of set and subset or of aggregate and component, that provides us with the better model for the structure of part-whole in its application to material things.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Things and Their Parts [1999], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
His idea is to give some sort of internal structure. He says of {a,b,c,d} that we can create subsets {a,b} and {c,d} from that. But {{a,b},{c,d}} has given member sets, and he is looking for 'natural' divisions between the members.
|
13333
|
The matter is a relatively unstructured version of the object, like a set without membership structure [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
The wood is, as it were, a relatively unstructured version of the tree, just as the set {a,b,c,d} is an unstructured counterpart of the set {{a,b},{c,d}}.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Things and Their Parts [1999], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
He is trying to give a modern logicians' account of the Aristotelian concept of 'form' (as applied to matter). It is part of the modern project that objects must be connected to the formalism of mereology or set theory. If it works, are we thereby wiser?
|
13326
|
A 'temporary' part is a part at one time, but may not be at another, like a carburetor [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
First, a thing can be a part in a way that is relative to a time, for example, that a newly installed carburettor is now part of my car, whereas earlier it was not. (This will be called a 'temporary' part).
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Things and Their Parts [1999], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
[Cf Idea 13327 for the 'second' concept of part] I'm immediately uneasy. Being a part seems to be a univocal concept. He seems to be distinguishing parts which are necessary for identity from those which aren't. Fine likes to define by example.
|
13327
|
A 'timeless' part just is a part, not a part at some time; some atoms are timeless parts of a water molecule [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
Second, an object can be a part of another in a way that is not relative to time ('timeless'). It is not appropriate to ask when it is a part. Thus pants and jacket are parts of the suit, atoms of a water molecule, and two pints part of a quart of milk.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Things and Their Parts [1999], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
[cf Idea 13326 for the other concept of 'part'] Again I am uneasy that 'part' could have two meanings. A Life Member is a member in the same way that a normal paid up member is a member.
|
13329
|
An 'aggregative' sum is spread in time, and exists whenever a component exists [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
In the 'aggregative' understanding of a sum, it is spread out in time, so that exists whenever any of its components exists (just as it is located at any time wherever any of its components are located).
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Things and Their Parts [1999], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
This works particularly well for something like an ancient forest, which steadily changes its trees. On that view, though, the ship which has had all of its planks replaced will be the identical single sum of planks all the way through. Fine agrees.
|
13330
|
An 'compound' sum is not spread in time, and only exists when all the components exists [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
In the 'compound' notion of sum, the mereological sum is spread out only in space, not also in time. For it to exist at a time, all of its components must exist at the time.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Things and Their Parts [1999], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
It is hard to think of anything to which this applies, apart from for a classical mereologist. Named parts perhaps, like Tom, Dick and Harry. Most things preserve sum identity despite replacement of parts by identical components.
|
13328
|
Two sorts of whole have 'rigid embodiment' (timeless parts) or 'variable embodiment' (temporary parts) [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
I develop a version of hylomorphism, in which the theory of 'rigid embodiment' provides an account of the timeless relation of part, and the theory of 'variable embodiment' is an account of the temporary relation. We must accept two new kinds of whole.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Things and Their Parts [1999], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
[see Idea 13326 and Idea 13327 for the two concepts of 'part'] This is easier to take than the two meanings for 'part'. Since Aristotle, everyone has worried about true wholes (atoms, persons?) and looser wholes (houses).
|
13082
|
The complete concept of an individual includes contingent properties, as well as necessary ones [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
In this complete concept of possible Peter are contained not only essential or necessary things, ..but also existential things, or contingent items included there, because the nature of an individual substance is to have a perfect or complete concept.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (Of liberty, Fate and God's grace [1690], Grua 311), quoted by Cover,J/O'Leary-Hawthorne,J - Substance and Individuation in Leibniz 3.3.1
|
|
A reaction:
Compare Idea 13077, where he seems to say that the complete concept is only necessarily linked to properties which will predict future events - though I suppose that would have to include all of the contingent properties mentioned here.
|
5991
|
For Aristotle, knowledge is of causes, and is theoretical, practical or productive [Aristotle, by Code]
|
|
Full Idea:
Aristotle thinks that in general we have knowledge or understanding when we grasp causes, and he distinguishes three fundamental types of knowledge - theoretical, practical and productive.
|
|
From:
report of Aristotle (works [c.330 BCE]) by Alan D. Code - Aristotle
|
|
A reaction:
Productive knowledge we tend to label as 'knowing how'. The centrality of causes for knowledge would get Aristotle nowadays labelled as a 'naturalist'. It is hard to disagree with his three types, though they may overlap.
|
8660
|
There are potential infinities (never running out), but actual infinity is incoherent [Aristotle, by Friend]
|
|
Full Idea:
Aristotle developed his own distinction between potential infinity (never running out) and actual infinity (there being a collection of an actual infinite number of things, such as places, times, objects). He decided that actual infinity was incoherent.
|
|
From:
report of Aristotle (works [c.330 BCE]) by Michèle Friend - Introducing the Philosophy of Mathematics 1.3
|
|
A reaction:
Friend argues, plausibly, that this won't do, since potential infinity doesn't make much sense if there is not an actual infinity of things to supply the demand. It seems to just illustrate how boggling and uncongenial infinity was to Aristotle.
|
22729
|
The concepts of gods arose from observing the soul, and the cosmos [Aristotle, by Sext.Empiricus]
|
|
Full Idea:
Aristotle said that the conception of gods arose among mankind from two originating causes, namely from events which concern the soul and from celestial phenomena.
|
|
From:
report of Aristotle (works [c.330 BCE], Frag 10) by Sextus Empiricus - Against the Physicists (two books) I.20
|
|
A reaction:
The cosmos suggests order, and possible creation. What do events of the soul suggest? It doesn't seem to be its non-physical nature, because Aristotle is more of a functionalist. Puzzling. (It says later that gods are like the soul).
|