|
9035
|
If judgement of a characteristic is possible, that part of abstraction must be complete [Price,HH]
|
|
Full Idea:
If we are to 'judge' - rightly or not - that this object has a specific characteristic, it would seem that so far as the characteristic is concerned the process of abstraction must already be completed.
|
|
From:
H.H. Price (Thinking and Experience [1953], Ch.III)
|
|
A reaction:
Personally I think Price is right, despite the vicious attack from Geach that looms. We all know the experiences of familiarity, recognition, and identification that go on when see a person or picture. 'What animal is that, in the distance?'
|
|
9034
|
There may be degrees of abstraction which allow recognition by signs, without full concepts [Price,HH]
|
|
Full Idea:
If abstraction is a matter of degree, and the first faint beginnings of it are already present as soon as anything has begun to feel familiar to us, then recognition by means of signs can occur long before the process of abstraction has been completed.
|
|
From:
H.H. Price (Thinking and Experience [1953], Ch.III)
|
|
A reaction:
I like this, even though it is unscientific introspective psychology, for which no proper evidence can be adduced - because it is right. Neuroscience confirms that hardly any mental life has an all-or-nothing form.
|
|
9036
|
There is pre-verbal sign-based abstraction, as when ice actually looks cold [Price,HH]
|
|
Full Idea:
We must still insist that some degree of abstraction, and even a very considerable degree of it, is present in sign-cognition, pre-verbal as it is. ...To us, who are familiar with northern winters, the ice actually looks cold.
|
|
From:
H.H. Price (Thinking and Experience [1953], Ch.IV)
|
|
A reaction:
Price may be in the weak position of doing armchair psychology, but something like his proposal strikes me as correct. I'm much happier with accounts of thought that talk of 'degrees' of an activity, than with all-or-nothing cut-and-dried pictures.
|
|
9030
|
Abstractions can be interpreted dispositionally, as the ability to recognise or imagine an item [Price,HH]
|
|
Full Idea:
An abstract idea may have a dispositional as well as an occurrent interpretation. ..A man who possesses the concept Dog, when he is actually perceiving a dog can recognize that it is one, and can think about dogs when he is not perceiving any dog.
|
|
From:
H.H. Price (Thinking and Experience [1953], Ch.IX)
|
|
A reaction:
Ryle had just popularised the 'dispositional' account of mental events. Price is obviously right. The man may also be able to use the word 'dog' in sentences, but presumably dogs recognise dogs, and probably dream about dogs too.
|
|
9029
|
If ideas have to be images, then abstract ideas become a paradoxical problem [Price,HH]
|
|
Full Idea:
There used to be a 'problem of Abstract Ideas' because it was assumed that an idea ought, somehow, to be a mental image; if some of our ideas appeared not to be images, this was a paradox and some solution must be found.
|
|
From:
H.H. Price (Thinking and Experience [1953], Ch.VIII)
|
|
A reaction:
Berkeley in particular seems to be struck by the fact that we are incapable of thinking of a general triangle, simply because there is no image related to it. Most conversations go too fast for images to form even of very visual things.
|
|
12759
|
There are atoms of substance, but no atoms of bulk or extension [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
Although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk [moles], that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], §11)
|
|
A reaction:
Leibniz has a constant battle for the rest of his career to explain what these 'atoms of substance' are, since they have location but no extension, they are self-sufficient yet generate force, and are non-physical but interact with matter.
|
|
12718
|
Secondary matter is active and complete; primary matter is passive and incomplete [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
I understand matter as either secondary or primary. Secondary matter is, indeed, a complete substance, but it is not merely passive; primary matter is merely passive, but it is not a complete substance. So we must add a soul or form...
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], §12), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 4
|
|
A reaction:
It sounds as if primary matter is redundant, but Garber suggests that secondary matter is just the combination of primary matter with form.
|
|
11854
|
If there is some trace of God in things, that would explain their natural force [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
If the law of God does indeed leave some vestige of him expressed in things...then it must be granted that there is a certain efficacy residing in things, a form or force such as we usually designate by the name of nature, from which the phenomena follow.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], §06)
|
|
A reaction:
I wouldn't rate this as a very promising theory of powers, but it seems to me important that Leibniz recognises the innate power in things as needing explanation. If you remove divine power, you are left with unexplained intrinsic powers.
|
|
12758
|
It is plausible to think substances contain the same immanent force seen in our free will [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
If we attribute an inherent force to our mind, a force acting immanently, then nothing forbids us to suppose that the same force would be found in other souls or forms, or, if you prefer, in the nature of substances.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], §10)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the kind of bizarre idea that you are driven to, once you start thinking that God must have a will outside nature, and then that we have the same thing. Why shouldn't such a thing pop up all over the place? Only Leibniz spots the slippery slope.
|
|
19408
|
To say that nature or the one universal substance is God is a pernicious doctrine [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
To say that nature itself or the substance of all things is God is a pernicious doctrine, recently introduced into the world or renewed by a subtle or profane author.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], 8)
|
|
A reaction:
The dastardly profane author is, of course, Spinoza, whom Leibniz had met in 1676. The doctrine may be pernicious to religious orthodoxy, but to me it is rather baffling, since in my understanding nature and God have almost nothing in common.
|