|
7024
|
Properties are universals, which are always instantiated [Armstrong, by Heil]
|
|
Full Idea:
Armstrong takes properties to be universals, and believes there are no 'uninstantiated' universals.
|
|
From:
report of David M. Armstrong (A Theory of Universals [1978]) by John Heil - From an Ontological Point of View §9.3
|
|
A reaction:
At first glance this, like many theories of universals, seems to invite Ockham's Razor. If they are always instantiated, perhaps we should perhaps just try to talk about the instantiations (i.e. tropes), and skip the universal?
|
|
9478
|
Even if all properties are categorical, they may be denoted by dispositional predicates [Armstrong, by Bird]
|
|
Full Idea:
Armstrong says all properties are categorical, but a dispositional predicate may denote such a property; the dispositional predicate denotes the categorical property in virtue of the dispositional role it happens, contingently, to play in this world.
|
|
From:
report of David M. Armstrong (A Theory of Universals [1978]) by Alexander Bird - Nature's Metaphysics 3.1
|
|
A reaction:
I favour the fundamentality of the dispositional rather than the categorical. The world consists of powers, and we find ourselves amidst their categorical expressions. I could be persuaded otherwise, though!
|
|
10728
|
A thing's self-identity can't be a universal, since we can know it a priori [Armstrong, by Oliver]
|
|
Full Idea:
Armstrong says that if it can be proved a priori that a thing falls under a certain universal, then there is no such universal - and hence there is no universal of a thing being identical with itself.
|
|
From:
report of David M. Armstrong (A Theory of Universals [1978], II p.11) by Alex Oliver - The Metaphysics of Properties 11
|
|
A reaction:
This is a distinctively Armstrongian view, based on his belief that universals must be instantiated, and must be discoverable a posteriori, as part of science. I'm baffled by self-identity, but I don't think this argument does the job.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|