|
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.
|
|
11990
|
'Haecceitism' says that sameness or difference of individuals is independent of appearances [Kaplan]
|
|
Full Idea:
The doctrine that we can ask whether this is the same individual in another possible world, and that a common 'thisness' may underlie extreme dissimilarity, or distinct thisnesses may underlie great resemblance, I call 'Haecceitism'.
|
|
From:
David Kaplan (How to Russell a Frege-Church [1975], IV)
|
|
A reaction:
Penelope Mackie emphasises that this doctrine, that each thing is somehow individuated, is not the same as believing in actual haecceities, specific properties which achieve the individuating.
|
|
11991
|
If quantification into modal contexts is legitimate, that seems to imply some form of haecceitism [Kaplan]
|
|
Full Idea:
If one regards the usual form of quantification into modal and other intensional contexts - modality de re - as legitimate (without special explanations), then one seems committed to some form of haecceitism.
|
|
From:
David Kaplan (How to Russell a Frege-Church [1975], IV)
|
|
A reaction:
That is, modal reference requires fixed identities, irrespective of possible changes in properties. Why could one not refer to objects just as bundles of properties, with some sort of rules about when it ceased to be that particular bundle (keep 60%?)?
|
|
23304
|
The ancient Memorists said virtually all types of thinking could be done simply by memory [Sorabji]
|
|
Full Idea:
The ancient medical Memorists said that ordinary thinking, inferring, reflecting, believing, assuming, examining, generalising and knowing can all be done simply on the basis of memory.
|
|
From:
Richard Sorabji (Rationality [1996], 'Inference')
|
|
A reaction:
The think there is a plausible theory that all neurons do is remember, and are mainly distinguished by the duration of their memories. We might explain these modes of thinking in terms of various combinations of the fast and the slow.
|
|
23303
|
Stoics say true memory needs reflection and assent, but animals only have perceptual recognition [Sorabji]
|
|
Full Idea:
Stoics say memory proper involves reflection and assent. Animal memory, by contrast, is not memory proper, but mere perceptual recognition. The horse remembers the road when he is on it, but not when he is in the stable.
|
|
From:
Richard Sorabji (Rationality [1996], 'Other')
|
|
A reaction:
An interesting distinction. Do I remember something if I can never recall it, and yet recognise it when it reappears, such as a person I knew long ago? 'Memory' is ambiguous, between lodged in the mind, and recallable. Unfair to horses, this.
|
|
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).
|