8 ideas
16980 | We need a logical use of 'object' as predicate-worthy, and an 'ontological' use [Strawson,P] |
Full Idea: There is a good case for a conservative reform of the word 'object'. Objects in the 'logical' sense would be all predicate-worthy identifiabilia whatever. Objects in the 'ontological' sense would form one ontological category among many others. | |
From: Peter F. Strawson (Entity and Identity [1978], I n4) | |
A reaction: This ambiguity has caused me no end of confusion (and irritation!). I wish philosophers wouldn't hijack perfectly good English words and give them weird meanings. Nice to have a distinguished fellow like Strawson make this suggestion. |
19347 | Substance needs independence, unity, and stability (for individuation); also it is a subject, for predicates [Perkins] |
Full Idea: For individuation, substance needs three properties: independence, to separate it from other things; unity, to call it one thing, rather than an aggregate; and permanence or stability over time. Its other role is as subject for predicates. | |
From: Franklin Perkins (Leibniz: Guide for the Perplexed [2007], 3.1) | |
A reaction: Perkins is describing the Aristotelian view, which is taken up by Leibniz. 'Substance' is not a controversial idea, if we see that it only means that the world is full of 'things'. It is an unusual philosopher wholly totally denies that. |
16979 | It makes no sense to ask of some individual thing what it is that makes it that individual [Strawson,P] |
Full Idea: For no object is there a unique character or relation by which it must be identified if it is to be identified at all. This is why it makes no sense to ask, impersonally and in general, of some individual object what makes it the individual object it is. | |
From: Peter F. Strawson (Entity and Identity [1978], I) | |
A reaction: He links this remark with the claim that there is no individual essence, but he seems to view an individual essence as indispensable to recognition or individuation of the object, which I don't see. Recognise it first, work out its essence later. |
3296 | Sense-data are a false objectification of what is essentially subjective [Nagel] |
Full Idea: The private object or sense datum view is an instance of the false objectification of what is essentially subjective. | |
From: Thomas Nagel (Subjective and Objective [1979], p.207) |
3295 | Inner v outer brings astonishment that we are a particular person [Nagel] |
Full Idea: The problem of reconciling the objective and subjective points of view takes its purest form in a sense of incredulity that one should be anyone in particular. | |
From: Thomas Nagel (Subjective and Objective [1979], p.206) | |
A reaction: Nice observation. This idea has always struck me forcibly, and seems to be one of those basic intuitions which motivates philosophy, and yet the subject has almost nothing to say about it. Of course you are you, or you wouldn't be amazed by it… |
3293 | If you assert that we have an ego, you can still ask if that future ego will be me [Nagel] |
Full Idea: The metaphysical ego, if it is a continuing individual with its identity over time, is just one more thing about which the same problem can be raised - will that ego still be me? | |
From: Thomas Nagel (Subjective and Objective [1979], p.200) | |
A reaction: You can worry too much about some philosophical questions. If it is me now, and it has continuing individual identity over time, I'm not going to lose sleep over the possibility that it might nevertheless somehow cease to be me. I'm overrated. |
3292 | The most difficult problem of free will is saying what the problem is [Nagel] |
Full Idea: The most difficult problem of free will is saying what the problem is. | |
From: Thomas Nagel (Subjective and Objective [1979], p.198) |
3294 | As far as possible we should become instruments to realise what is best from an eternal point of view [Nagel] |
Full Idea: The right thing to do is to turn oneself as far as possible into an instrument for the realisation of what is best 'sub specie aeternitatis'. | |
From: Thomas Nagel (Subjective and Objective [1979], p.204) |