|
20771
|
Six parts: dialectic, rhetoric, ethics, politics, physics, theology [Cleanthes, by Diog. Laertius]
|
|
Full Idea:
Cleanthes says there are six parts: dialectic, rhetoric, ethics, politics, physics, and theology.
|
|
From:
report of Cleanthes (fragments/reports [c.270 BCE]) by Diogenes Laertius - Lives of Eminent Philosophers 07.41
|
|
A reaction:
This was a minority view, as most stoics agreed with Zeno and Chrysippus that there are three main topics. Nowadays there is little discussion of the 'parts' of philosophy, but the recent revival of meta-philosophy should encourage it.
|
|
8249
|
Class membership is not transitive, unlike being part of a part of the whole [Lesniewski, by George/Van Evra]
|
|
Full Idea:
Lesniewski distinguished the part-whole relationship from class membership. Membership is not transitive: if s is an element of t, and t of u, then s is not an element of u, whereas a part of a part is a part of the whole.
|
|
From:
report of Stanislaw Lesniewski (works [1916]) by George / Van Evra - The Rise of Modern Logic 7
|
|
A reaction:
If I am a member of a sports club, and my club is a member of the league, I am not thereby a member of the league (so clubs are classes, not wholes). This distinction is clearly fairly crucial in ontology.
|
|
6028
|
Bodies interact with other bodies, and cuts cause pain, and shame causes blushing, so the soul is a body [Cleanthes, by Nemesius]
|
|
Full Idea:
Cleanthes says no incorporeal interacts with a body, but one body interacts with another body; the soul interacts with the body when it is sick and being cut, and the body feels shame and fear, and turns red or pale, so the soul is a body.
|
|
From:
report of Cleanthes (fragments/reports [c.270 BCE]) by Nemesius - De Natura Hominis 78,7
|
|
A reaction:
This is precisely the interaction problem with dualism, or, as we might now say, the problem of mental causation. The standard Stoic view is that the soul is a sort of rarefied fire, which disperses at death.
|
|
17371
|
Some kinds are very explanatory, but others less so, and some not at all [Devitt]
|
|
Full Idea:
Explanatory significance, hence naturalness, comes in degrees: positing some kinds may be very explanatory, positing others, only a little bit explanatory, positing others still, not explanatory at all.
|
|
From:
Michael Devitt (Natural Kinds and Biological Realism [2009], 4)
|
|
A reaction:
He mentions 'cousin' as a natural kind that is not very explanatory of anything. It interests us as humans, but not at all in other animals, it seems. ...Nice thought, though, that two squirrels might be cousins...
|