|
8978
|
Events are made of other things, and are not fundamental to ontology [Bennett]
|
|
Full Idea:
Events are not basic items in the universe; they should not be included in any fundamental ontology...all the truths about them are entailed by and explained and made true by truths that do not involve the event concept.
|
|
From:
Jonathan Bennett (Events and Their Names [1988], p.12), quoted by Peter Simons - Events 3.1
|
|
A reaction:
Given the variable time spans of events, their ability to coincide, their ability to contain no motion, their blatantly conventional component, and their recalcitrance to individuation, I say Bennett is right.
|
|
16744
|
All powers can be explained by obvious features like size, shape and motion of matter [Descartes]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are no powers in stones and plants that are not so mysterious that they cannot be explained …from principles that are known to all and admitted by all, namely the shape, size, position, and motion of particles of matter.
|
|
From:
René Descartes (Principles of Philosophy [1646], IV.187), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 23.6
|
|
A reaction:
This is an invocation of 'categorical' properties, against dispositions. I take this to be quite wrong. The explanation goes the other way. What supports the structures; what drives the motion; what initiates anything?
|
|
5016
|
Five universals: genus, species, difference, property, accident [Descartes]
|
|
Full Idea:
The five commonly enumerated universals are: genus, species, difference, property and accident.
|
|
From:
René Descartes (Principles of Philosophy [1646], I.59)
|
|
A reaction:
Interestingly, this seems to be Descartes passing on his medieval Aristotelian inheritance, in which things are defined by placing them in a class, and then noting what distinguishes them within that class.
|
|
16633
|
A substance has one principal property which is its nature and essence [Descartes]
|
|
Full Idea:
Each substance has one principal property that constitutes its nature and essence, to which all its other properties are referred. Extension in length, breadth, and depth constitutes the nature of corporeal substance; and thought of thinking substances.
|
|
From:
René Descartes (Principles of Philosophy [1646], I.53), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 08.3
|
|
A reaction:
Property is likely to be 'propria', which is a property distinctive of some thing, not just any old modern property. This is quite a strikingly original view of the nature of essence. Descartes despised 'substantial forms'.
|
|
5005
|
I think, therefore I am, because for a thinking thing to not exist is a contradiction [Descartes]
|
|
Full Idea:
There is a contradiction in conceiving that what thinks does not (at the same time as it thinks) exist. Hence this conclusion I think, therefore I am, is the first and most certain that occurs to one who philosophises in an orderly way.
|
|
From:
René Descartes (Principles of Philosophy [1646], I.07)
|
|
A reaction:
The classic statement of his argument. The significance here is that it seems to have the structure of an argument, as it involves 'philosophising', which leads to a 'contradiction', and hence to the famous conclusion. It is not just intuitive.
|
|
5006
|
'Thought' is all our conscious awareness, including feeling as well as understanding [Descartes]
|
|
Full Idea:
By the word 'thought' I understand everything we are conscious of as operating in us. And that is why not only understanding, willing, imagining, but also feeling, are here the same thing as thinking.
|
|
From:
René Descartes (Principles of Philosophy [1646], I.09)
|
|
A reaction:
There is a bit of tension here between Descartes' correct need to include feeling in thought for his Cogito argument, and his tendency to dismiss animal consciousness, on the grounds that they only sense things, and don't make judgements.
|
|
5012
|
'Nothing comes from nothing' is an eternal truth found within the mind [Descartes]
|
|
Full Idea:
The proposition 'nothing comes from nothing' is not to be considered as an existing thing, or the mode of a thing, but as a certain eternal truth which has its seat in our mind and is a common notion or axiom.
|
|
From:
René Descartes (Principles of Philosophy [1646], I.49)
|
|
A reaction:
There is a tension here, in his assertion that it is 'eternal', but 'not existing'. How does one distinguish an innate idea from an innate truth? 'Eternal' sounds like an external guarantee of truth, but being 'in our mind' sounds less reliable.
|
|
5004
|
We can know basic Principles without further knowledge, but not the other way round [Descartes]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is on the Principles, or first causes, that the knowledge of other things depends, so the Principles can be known without these last, but the other things cannot reciprocally be known without the Principles.
|
|
From:
René Descartes (Principles of Philosophy [1646], Pref)
|
|
A reaction:
A particularly strong assertion of foundationalism, as it says that not only must the foundations exist, but also we must actually know them. This sounds false, as elementary knowledge then seems to require far too much sophistication.
|
|
9035
|
If judgement of a characteristic is possible, that part of abstraction must be complete [Price,HH]
|
|
Full Idea:
If we are to 'judge' - rightly or not - that this object has a specific characteristic, it would seem that so far as the characteristic is concerned the process of abstraction must already be completed.
|
|
From:
H.H. Price (Thinking and Experience [1953], Ch.III)
|
|
A reaction:
Personally I think Price is right, despite the vicious attack from Geach that looms. We all know the experiences of familiarity, recognition, and identification that go on when see a person or picture. 'What animal is that, in the distance?'
|
|
9034
|
There may be degrees of abstraction which allow recognition by signs, without full concepts [Price,HH]
|
|
Full Idea:
If abstraction is a matter of degree, and the first faint beginnings of it are already present as soon as anything has begun to feel familiar to us, then recognition by means of signs can occur long before the process of abstraction has been completed.
|
|
From:
H.H. Price (Thinking and Experience [1953], Ch.III)
|
|
A reaction:
I like this, even though it is unscientific introspective psychology, for which no proper evidence can be adduced - because it is right. Neuroscience confirms that hardly any mental life has an all-or-nothing form.
|
|
9036
|
There is pre-verbal sign-based abstraction, as when ice actually looks cold [Price,HH]
|
|
Full Idea:
We must still insist that some degree of abstraction, and even a very considerable degree of it, is present in sign-cognition, pre-verbal as it is. ...To us, who are familiar with northern winters, the ice actually looks cold.
|
|
From:
H.H. Price (Thinking and Experience [1953], Ch.IV)
|
|
A reaction:
Price may be in the weak position of doing armchair psychology, but something like his proposal strikes me as correct. I'm much happier with accounts of thought that talk of 'degrees' of an activity, than with all-or-nothing cut-and-dried pictures.
|
|
5011
|
There are two ultimate classes of existence: thinking substance and extended substance [Descartes]
|
|
Full Idea:
I observe two ultimate classes of things: intellectual or thinking things, pertaining to the mind or to thinking substance, and material things, pertaining to extended substance or to body.
|
|
From:
René Descartes (Principles of Philosophy [1646], I.48)
|
|
A reaction:
This is clear confirmation that Descartes believed the mind is a substance, rather than an insubstantial world of thinking. It leaves open the possibility of a different theory: that mind is not a substance, but is a Platonic adjunct to reality.
|
|
5018
|
Even if tightly united, mind and body are different, as God could separate them [Descartes]
|
|
Full Idea:
Even if we suppose God had united a body and a soul so closely that they couldn't be closer, and made a single thing out of the two, they would still remain distinct, because God has the power of separating them, or conserving out without the other.
|
|
From:
René Descartes (Principles of Philosophy [1646], I.60)
|
|
A reaction:
If Descartes lost his belief in God (after discussing existence with Kant) would he cease to be a dualist? This quotation seems to be close to conceding a mind-body relationship more like supervenience than interaction.
|
|
9030
|
Abstractions can be interpreted dispositionally, as the ability to recognise or imagine an item [Price,HH]
|
|
Full Idea:
An abstract idea may have a dispositional as well as an occurrent interpretation. ..A man who possesses the concept Dog, when he is actually perceiving a dog can recognize that it is one, and can think about dogs when he is not perceiving any dog.
|
|
From:
H.H. Price (Thinking and Experience [1953], Ch.IX)
|
|
A reaction:
Ryle had just popularised the 'dispositional' account of mental events. Price is obviously right. The man may also be able to use the word 'dog' in sentences, but presumably dogs recognise dogs, and probably dream about dogs too.
|
|
9029
|
If ideas have to be images, then abstract ideas become a paradoxical problem [Price,HH]
|
|
Full Idea:
There used to be a 'problem of Abstract Ideas' because it was assumed that an idea ought, somehow, to be a mental image; if some of our ideas appeared not to be images, this was a paradox and some solution must be found.
|
|
From:
H.H. Price (Thinking and Experience [1953], Ch.VIII)
|
|
A reaction:
Berkeley in particular seems to be struck by the fact that we are incapable of thinking of a general triangle, simply because there is no image related to it. Most conversations go too fast for images to form even of very visual things.
|
|
5008
|
The greatest perfection of man is to act by free will, and thus merit praise or blame [Descartes]
|
|
Full Idea:
That the will should extend widely accords with its nature, and it is the greatest perfection in man to be able to act by its means, that is, freely, and by so doing we are in peculiar way masters of our actions, and thereby merit praise or blame.
|
|
From:
René Descartes (Principles of Philosophy [1646], I.37)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to me to be a deep-rooted and false understanding which philosophy has inherited from theology. It doesn't strike me that there must an absolute 'buck-stop' to make us responsible. Why is it better for a decision to appear out of nowhere?
|
|
15987
|
Physics only needs geometry or abstract mathematics, which can explain and demonstrate everything [Descartes]
|
|
Full Idea:
I do not accept or desire any other principle in physics than in geometry or abstract mathematics, because all the phenomena of nature may be explained by their means, and sure demonstrations can be given of them.
|
|
From:
René Descartes (Principles of Philosophy [1646], 2.64), quoted by Peter Alexander - Ideas, Qualities and Corpuscles 7
|
|
A reaction:
This is his famous and rather extreme view, which might be described as hyper-pythagoreanism (by adding geometry to numbers). It seems to leave out matter, forces and activity.
|
|
16601
|
Matter is not hard, heavy or coloured, but merely extended in space [Descartes]
|
|
Full Idea:
The nature of matter, or body viewed as a whole, consists not in its being something which is hard, heavy, or colored, or which in any other way affects the senses, but only in its being a thing extended in length, breadth and depth.
|
|
From:
René Descartes (Principles of Philosophy [1646], 2.4), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 04.5
|
|
10364
|
Facts are about the world, not in it, so they can't cause anything [Bennett]
|
|
Full Idea:
Facts are not the sort of item that can cause anything. A fact is a true proposition (they say); it is not something in the world but is rather something about the world.
|
|
From:
Jonathan Bennett (Events and Their Names [1988], p.22), quoted by Jonathan Schaffer - The Metaphysics of Causation 1.1
|
|
A reaction:
Compare 10361. Good argument, but maybe 'fact' is ambiguous. See Idea 10365. Events are said to be more concrete, and so can do the job, but their individuation also seems to depend on a description (as Davidson has pointed out).
|