Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Dthat', 'Spinoza's Ethics' and 'De formis'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these texts

4 ideas

1. Philosophy / B. History of Ideas / 5. Later European Thought
21855 Only in the 1780s did it become acceptable to read Spinoza [Lord]
     Full Idea: It was not until the 1780s that it became acceptable to read the works of Spinoza, and even then it was not without a frisson of danger.
     From: Beth Lord (Spinoza's Ethics [2010], Intro 'Who?')
     A reaction: Hence we hear of Wordsworth and Coleridge reading him with excitement. So did Kant read him?
12. Knowledge Sources / B. Perception / 2. Qualities in Perception / c. Primary qualities
16719 The primary qualities are mixed to cause secondary qualities [Burley]
     Full Idea: Secondary qualities are caused by a mixture of primary qualities.
     From: Walter Burley (De formis [1330], pars post p.65), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 21.2
     A reaction: Like paint. He probably has in mind hot, cold, wet and dry as the primary qualities.
15. Nature of Minds / C. Capacities of Minds / 10. Conatus/Striving
21866 Hobbes and Spinoza use 'conatus' to denote all endeavour for advantage in nature [Lord]
     Full Idea: 'Conatus' [translated as 'striving' by Curley] is used by early modern philosophers, including Thomas Hobbes (a major influence of Spinoza), to express the notion of a thing's endeavour for what is advantageous to it. It drives all things in nature.
     From: Beth Lord (Spinoza's Ethics [2010], p.88)
     A reaction: I think it is important to connect conatus to Nietzsche's talk of a plurality of 'drives', which are an expression of the universal will to power (which is seen even in the interactions of chemistry). Conatus is also in Leibniz.
19. Language / B. Reference / 3. Direct Reference / b. Causal reference
14080 Are causal descriptions part of the causal theory of reference, or are they just metasemantic? [Kaplan, by Schaffer,J]
     Full Idea: Kaplan notes that the causal theory of reference can be understood in two quite different ways, as part of the semantics (involving descriptions of causal processes), or as metasemantics, explaining why a term has the referent it does.
     From: report of David Kaplan (Dthat [1970]) by Jonathan Schaffer - Deflationary Metaontology of Thomasson 1
     A reaction: [Kaplan 'Afterthought' 1989] The theory tends to be labelled as 'direct' rather than as 'causal' these days, but causal chains are still at the heart of the story (even if more diffused socially). Nice question. Kaplan takes the meta- version as orthodox.