|
9545
|
Late in life Frege abandoned logicism, and saw the source of arithmetic as geometrical [Frege, by Chihara]
|
|
Full Idea:
Near the end of his life, Frege completely abandoned his logicism, and came to the conclusion that the source of our arithmetical knowledge is what he called 'the Geometrical Source of Knowledge'.
|
|
From:
report of Gottlob Frege (Sources of Knowledge of Mathematics [1922]) by Charles Chihara - A Structural Account of Mathematics Intro n3
|
|
A reaction:
We have, rather crucially, lost touch with the geometrical origins of arithmetic (such as 'square' numbers), which is good news for the practice of mathematics, but probably a disaster for the philosophy of the subject.
|
|
23681
|
The first motion or effect cannot be produced necessarily, so the First Cause must be a free agent [Reid]
|
|
Full Idea:
That the first motion, or the first effect, whatever it be, cannot be produced necessarily, and, consequently, that the First Cause must be a free agent, has been demonstrated clearly and unanswerably.
|
|
From:
Thomas Reid (Essays on Active Powers 4: Liberty of Agents [1788], 8)
|
|
A reaction:
He has said that the First Cause can only be conceived by us as an 'agent'. If there is an agential First Cause, then he must be right. It is this need for God to be free which makes scepticism about free will unacceptable to many.
|
|
23680
|
We are morally free, because we experience it, we are accountable, and we pursue projects [Reid]
|
|
Full Idea:
I believe in moral liberty first because we have a natural conviction of belief that in many cases we act freely, second because we are accountable, and third because we can prosecute an end by a long series of means adapted.
|
|
From:
Thomas Reid (Essays on Active Powers 4: Liberty of Agents [1788], 5)
|
|
A reaction:
This is his final summary of why he believes in free will. Why didn't Plato and Aristotle have this natural belief? He could only believe we are 'accountable' because he believes in free will. Ants and bees pursue lengthy projects. Hm.
|
|
23679
|
The principle of the law of nature is that matter is passive, and is acted upon [Reid]
|
|
Full Idea:
The law of nature respecting matter is grounded upon this principle: That matter is an inert, inactive substance, which does not act, but is acted upon.
|
|
From:
Thomas Reid (Essays on Active Powers 4: Liberty of Agents [1788], 5)
|
|
A reaction:
A clear statement (alongside Euler's) of the 18th century view, still with us, but strikes me as entirely wrong. Their view needs the active power of God to drive the laws. Matter has intrinsic primitive powers, and laws describe patterns of behaviour.
|
|
6616
|
Least action is not a causal law, but a 'global law', describing a global essence [Ellis]
|
|
Full Idea:
The principle of least action is not a causal law, but is what I call a 'global law', which describes the essence of the global kind, which every object in the universe necessarily instantiates.
|
|
From:
Brian Ellis (Katzav on limitations of dispositions [2005])
|
|
A reaction:
As a fan of essentialism I find this persuasive. If I inherit part of my essence from being a mammal, I inherit other parts of my essence from being an object, and all objects would share that essence, so it would look like a 'law' for all objects.
|
|
6615
|
A species requires a genus, and its essence includes the essence of the genus [Ellis]
|
|
Full Idea:
A specific universal can exist only if the generic universal of which it is a species exists, but generic universals don't depend on species; …the essence of any genus is included in its species, but not conversely.
|
|
From:
Brian Ellis (Katzav on limitations of dispositions [2005], 91)
|
|
A reaction:
Thus the species 'electron' would be part of the genus 'lepton', or 'human' part of 'mammal'. The point of all this is to show how individual items connect up with the rest of the universe, giving rise to universal laws, such as Least Action.
|
|
6614
|
A hierarchy of natural kinds is elaborate ontology, but needed to explain natural laws [Ellis]
|
|
Full Idea:
The hierarchy of natural kinds proposed by essentialism may be more elaborate than is strictly required for purposes of ontology, but it is necessary to explain the necessity of the laws of nature, and the universal applicability of global principles.
|
|
From:
Brian Ellis (Katzav on limitations of dispositions [2005], 91)
|
|
A reaction:
I am all in favour of elaborating ontology in the name of best explanation. There seem, though, to be some remaining ontological questions at the point where the explanations of essentialism run out.
|
|
6612
|
Without general principles, we couldn't predict the behaviour of dispositional properties [Ellis]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is objected to dispositionalism that without the principle of least action, or some general principle of equal power, the specific dispositional properties of things could tell us very little about how these things would be disposed to behave.
|
|
From:
Brian Ellis (Katzav on limitations of dispositions [2005], 90)
|
|
A reaction:
Ellis attempts to meet this criticism, by placing dispositional properties within a hierarchy of broader properties. There remains a nagging doubt about how essentialism can account for space, time, order, and the existence of essences.
|