|
8525
|
Relations need terms, so they must be second-order entities based on first-order tropes [Campbell,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
Because there cannot be relations without terms, in a meta-physic that makes first-order tropes the terms of all relations, relational tropes must belong to a second, derivative order.
|
|
From:
Keith Campbell (The Metaphysic of Abstract Particulars [1981], §8)
|
|
A reaction:
The admission that there could be a 'derivative order' may lead to trouble for trope theory. Ostrich Nominalists could say that properties themselves are derivative second-order abstractions from indivisible particulars. Russell makes them first-order.
|
|
8513
|
Two red cloths are separate instances of redness, because you can dye one of them blue [Campbell,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
If we have two cloths of the very same shade of redness, we can show there are two cloths by burning one and leaving the other unaffected; we show there are two cases of redness in the same way: dye one blue, leaving the other unaffected.
|
|
From:
Keith Campbell (The Metaphysic of Abstract Particulars [1981], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
This has to be one of the basic facts of the problem accepted by everyone. If you dye half of one of the pieces, was the original red therefore one instance or two? Has it become two? How many red tropes are there in a red cloth?
|
|
8524
|
Trope theory makes space central to reality, as tropes must have a shape and size [Campbell,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
The metaphysics of abstract particulars gives a central place to space, or space-time, as the frame of the world. ...Tropes are, of their essence, regional, which carries with it the essential presence of shape and size in any trope occurrence.
|
|
From:
Keith Campbell (The Metaphysic of Abstract Particulars [1981], §7)
|
|
A reaction:
Trope theory has a problem with Aristotle's example (Idea 557) of what happens when white is mixed with white. Do two tropes become one trope if you paint on a second coat of white? How can particulars merge? How can abstractions merge?
|
|
8519
|
Bundles must be unique, so the Identity of Indiscernibles is a necessity - which it isn't! [Campbell,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
Each individual is distinct from each other individual, so the bundle account of objects requires each bundle to be different from every other bundle. So the Identity of Indiscernibles must be a necessary truth, which, unfortunately, it is not.
|
|
From:
Keith Campbell (The Metaphysic of Abstract Particulars [1981], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
Clearly the Identity of Indiscernibles is not a necessary truth (consider just two identical spheres). Location and time must enter into it. Could we not add a further individuation requirement to the necessary existence of a bundle? (Quinton)
|
|
9757
|
A person viewed as an agent makes no sense without its own future [Korsgaard]
|
|
Full Idea:
In forming a particular plan of life, you need to identify with your future in order to be what you are even now. When the person is viewed as an agent, no clear content can be given to the idea of a merely present self.
|
|
From:
Christine M. Korsgaard (Intro to 'Creating the Kingdom of Ends' [1996], §2)
|
|
A reaction:
I certainly like the notion that we should treat persons primarily as agents, since I take personhood to be more like a process than an existent entity. If a large brick is about to hit you, you actually have no future, though you think you have.
|
|
8512
|
Abstractions come before the mind by concentrating on a part of what is presented [Campbell,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
An item is abstract if it is got before the mind by an act of abstraction, that is, by concentrating attention on some, but not all, of what is presented.
|
|
From:
Keith Campbell (The Metaphysic of Abstract Particulars [1981], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
I think this point is incredibly important. Pure Fregean semantics tries to leave out the psychological component, and yet all the problems in semantics concern various sorts of abstraction. Imagination is the focus of the whole operation.
|
|
9760
|
Self-concern may be a source of pain, or a lack of self-respect, or a failure of responsibility [Korsgaard]
|
|
Full Idea:
For utilitarians, self-concern causes needless pain; for Kantians, it evinces a lack of respect for one's own humanity; for the religious moralist, it is a failure of responsibility for what has been placed in one's special care.
|
|
From:
Christine M. Korsgaard (Intro to 'Creating the Kingdom of Ends' [1996], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
Worryingly, given my heathenish views, I find the third one the most congenial. If we don't take responsibility for our own selves (e.g. for having a great talent), then no one (even parents) will take responsibility for anything.
|
|
5121
|
Basing ethics on flourishing makes it consequentialist, as actions are judged by contributing to it [Harman]
|
|
Full Idea:
Basing ethics on human flourishing tends towards utilitarianism or consequentialism; actions, character traits, laws, and so on are to be assessed with reference to their contributions to human flourishing.
|
|
From:
Gilbert Harman (Human Flourishing, Ethics and Liberty [1983], 9.2.2)
|
|
A reaction:
This raises the question of whether only virtue can contribute to flourishing, or whether a bit of vice might be helpful. This problem presumably pushed the Stoics to say that virtue itself is the good, rather than the resulting flourishing.
|
|
9761
|
Personal concern for one's own self widens out into concern for the impersonal [Korsgaard]
|
|
Full Idea:
The personal concern which begins with one's life in a particular body finds its place in ever-widening spheres of agency and enterprise, developing finally into a personal concern for the impersonal.
|
|
From:
Christine M. Korsgaard (Intro to 'Creating the Kingdom of Ends' [1996], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
I am very struck by this nice thought, which comes from a very committed Kantian. It seems to me to capture the modern orthodoxy in ethical thinking - that concern for one's self, rather than altruism, is central, but altruism should follow from it.
|
|
8516
|
Davidson can't explain causation entirely by events, because conditions are also involved [Campbell,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
Not all singular causal statements are of Davidson's event-event type. Many involve conditions, so there are condition-event (weakness/collapse), event-condition (explosion/movement), and condition-condition (hot/warming) causal connections.
|
|
From:
Keith Campbell (The Metaphysic of Abstract Particulars [1981], §3)
|
|
A reaction:
Fans of Davidson need to reduce conditions to events. The problem of individuation keeps raising its head. Davidson makes it depend on description. Kim looks good, because events, and presumably conditions, reduce to something small and precise.
|