|
19406
|
I strongly believe in the actual infinite, which indicates the perfections of its author [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
I am so much for the actual infinite that instead of admitting that nature abhors it, as is commonly said, I hold that it affects nature everywhere in order to indicate the perfections of its author.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (Reply to Foucher [1693], p.99)
|
|
A reaction:
I would have thought that, for Leibniz, while infinities indicate the perfections of their author, that is not the reason why they exist. God wasn't, presumably, showing off. Leibniz does not think we can actually know these infinities.
|
|
11993
|
Jones may cease to exist without some simple property, but that doesn't make it essential [Kung]
|
|
Full Idea:
If Jones ceases to be a father, or ceases to be over eight years old, he will cease to exist, yet these properties surely do not belong essentially to him.
|
|
From:
Joan Kung (Aristotle on Essence and Explanation [1977], II)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to correct, though I would doubt whether either of these count as true properties, in the causal sense I prefer. If being 'over 8' is a property, how many 'over n' or 'under m' properties does he have? One for each quantum moment?
|
|
11992
|
Aristotelian essences underlie a thing's existence, explain it, and must belong to it [Kung]
|
|
Full Idea:
Three essentialist claims are labelled 'Aristotelian': the thing would cease to exist without the property; an essential property is explanatory; and it is such that it must belong to everything to which it belongs.
|
|
From:
Joan Kung (Aristotle on Essence and Explanation [1977], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
She says the second one is indispensable, and that it rules out the third one. My working assumption, like hers, is that the second one is the key part of the game, because Aristotle wanted to explain things.
|
|
18006
|
Chomsky's 'interpretative semantics' says syntax comes first, and is then interpreted [Chomsky, by Magidor]
|
|
Full Idea:
Chomsky and his followers (whose position was labelled 'interpretative semantics') claimed that a sentence is first assigned a syntactic structure by an autonomous syntactic module, and this structure is then provided as input for semantic interpretation.
|
|
From:
report of Noam Chomsky (Aspects of the Theory of Syntax [1965]) by Ofra Magidor - Category Mistakes 1.3
|
|
A reaction:
This certainly doesn't fit the experience of introspecting speech, but then I suppose good pianists focus entirely on the music, and overlook the finger movements which have obvious priority. But I don't know the syntax of the sentence when I begin it.
|