|
16620
|
A chair is wood, and its shape is the form; it isn't 'compounded' of the matter and form [Hobbes]
|
|
Full Idea:
Nothing can be compounded of matter and form. The matter of a chair is wood; the form is the figure it has, apt for the intended use. Does his Lordship think the chair compounded of the wood and the figure?
|
|
From:
Thomas Hobbes (Letter to Bramhall [1650], 4:302), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 07.1
|
|
A reaction:
Aristotle does use the word 'shape' [morphe] when he is discussing hylomorphism, and the statue example seems to support it, but elsewhere the form is a much deeper principle of individuation.
|
|
16622
|
Essence is just an artificial word from logic, giving a way of thinking about substances [Hobbes]
|
|
Full Idea:
Essence and all other abstract names are words artificial belonging to the art of logic, and signify only the manner how we consider the substance itself.
|
|
From:
Thomas Hobbes (Letter to Bramhall [1650], 4:308), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671
|
|
A reaction:
I sympathise quite a lot with this view, but not with its dismissive tone. The key question I take to be: if you reject essences entirely (having read too much physics), how are we going to think about entities in the world in future?
|
|
8329
|
Either causal relations are given in experience, or they are unobserved and theoretical [Sosa/Tooley]
|
|
Full Idea:
There is a fundamental choice between the realist approach to causation which says that the relation is immediately given in experience, and the view that causation is a theoretical relation, and so not directly observable.
|
|
From:
E Sosa / M Tooley (Introduction to 'Causation' [1993], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
Even if immediate experience is involved, there is a step of abstraction in calling it a cause, and picking out events. A 'theoretical relation' is not of much interest there if no observations are involved. I don't think a choice is required here.
|
|
8324
|
The problem is to explain how causal laws and relations connect, and how they link to the world [Sosa/Tooley]
|
|
Full Idea:
Causal states of affairs encompass causal laws, and causal relations between events or states of affairs; two key questions concern the relation between causal laws and causal relations, and the relation between these and non-causal affairs.
|
|
From:
E Sosa / M Tooley (Introduction to 'Causation' [1993], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the agenda for modern analytical philosophy. I'm not quite clear what would count as an answer. When have you 'explained' a relation? Does calling it 'gravity', or finding an equation, explain that relation? Do gravitinos explain it?
|
|
8328
|
Causation isn't energy transfer, because an electron is caused by previous temporal parts [Sosa/Tooley]
|
|
Full Idea:
The temporal parts of an electron (for example) are causally related, but this relation does not involve any transfer of energy or momentum. Causation cannot be identified with physical energy relations, and physicalist reductions look unpromising.
|
|
From:
E Sosa / M Tooley (Introduction to 'Causation' [1993], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
This idea, plus Idea 8327, are their grounds for rejecting Fair's proposal (Idea 8326). It feels like a different use of 'cause' when we say 'the existence of x was caused by its existence yesterday'. It is more like inertia. Destruction needs energy.
|
|
8325
|
The dominant view is that causal laws are prior; a minority say causes can be explained singly [Sosa/Tooley]
|
|
Full Idea:
The dominant view is that causal laws are more basic than causal relations, with relations being logically supervenient on causal laws, and on properties and event relations; some, though, defend the singularist view, in which events alone can be related.
|
|
From:
E Sosa / M Tooley (Introduction to 'Causation' [1993], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
I am deeply suspicious about laws (see Idea 5470). I suspect that the laws are merely descriptions of the regularities that arise from the single instances of causation. We won't explain the single instances, but then laws don't 'explain' them either.
|