21846
|
Bergson was a rallying point, because he emphasised becomings and multiplicities [Bergson, by Deleuze]
|
|
Full Idea:
Bergson was a rallying point for all the opposition, …not so much because of the theme of duration, as of the theory and practice of becoming of all kinds, of coexistent multiplicities.
|
|
From:
report of Henri Bergson (Matter and Memory [1896]) by Gilles Deleuze - A Conversation: what is it? What is it for? I
|
|
A reaction:
The three heroes of Deleuze are Spinoza, Nietzsche and Bergson. All philosophers are either of Being, or of Becoming, I suggest.
|
10243
|
My ontology is quarks etc., classes of such things, classes of such classes etc. [Quine]
|
|
Full Idea:
My tentative ontology continues to consist of quarks and their compounds, also classes of such things, classes of such classes, and so on.
|
|
From:
Willard Quine (Structure and Nature [1992], p.9), quoted by Stewart Shapiro - Philosophy of Mathematics 4.9
|
|
A reaction:
I would call this the Hierarchy of Abstraction (just coined it - what do you think?). Unlike Quine, I don't see why its ontology should include things called 'sets' in addition to the things that make them up.
|
17555
|
'One' can mean undivided and not a multitude, or it can add measurement, giving number [Aquinas]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are two sorts of one. There is the one which is convertible with being, which adds nothing to being except being undivided; and this deprives of multitude. Then there is the principle of number, which to the notion of being adds measurement.
|
|
From:
Thomas Aquinas (Quaestiones de Potentia Dei [1269], q3 a16 ad 3-um)
|
|
A reaction:
[From a lecture handout] I'm not sure I understand this. We might say, I suppose, that insofar as water is water, it is all one, but you can't count it. Perhaps being 'unified' and being a 'unity' are different?
|