|
19377
|
A monad and its body are living, so life is everywhere, and comes in infinite degrees [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
Each monad, together with a particular body, makes up a living substance. Thus, there is not only life everywhere, joined to limbs or organs, but there are also infinite degrees of life in the monads, some dominating more or less over others.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (Principles of Nature and Grace based on Reason [1714], 4)
|
|
A reaction:
Two key ideas: that each monad is linked to a body (which is presumably passive), and the infinite degrees of life in monads. Thus rocks consist of monads, but at an exceedingly low degree of life. They are stubborn and responsive.
|
|
19353
|
'Perception' is basic internal representation, and 'apperception' is reflective knowledge of perception [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
We distinguish between 'perception', the internal state of the monad representing external things, and 'apperception', which is consciousness, or the reflective knowledge of this internal state, not given to all souls, nor at all times to a given soul.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (Principles of Nature and Grace based on Reason [1714], §4)
|
|
A reaction:
The word 'apperception' is standard in Kant. I find it surprising that modern analytic philosophers don't seem to use it when they write about perception. It strikes me as useful, but maybe specialists have a reason for avoiding it.
|
|
18284
|
Particulars can be verified or falsified, but general statements can only be falsified (conclusively) [Popper]
|
|
Full Idea:
Whereas particular reality statements are in principle completely verifiable or falsifiable, things are different for general reality statements: they can indeed be conclusively falsified, they can acquire a negative truth value, but not a positive one.
|
|
From:
Karl Popper (Two Problems of Epistemology [1932], p.256), quoted by J. Alberto Coffa - The Semantic Tradition from Kant to Carnap 18 'Laws'
|
|
A reaction:
This sounds like a logician's approach to science, but I prefer to look at coherence, where very little is actually conclusive, and one tinkers with the theory instead.
|
|
5061
|
Animals are semi-rational because they connect facts, but they don't see causes [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
There is a connexion between the perceptions of animals, which bears some resemblance to reason: but it is based only on the memory of facts or effects, and not at all on the knowledge of causes.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (Principles of Nature and Grace based on Reason [1714], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
This amounts to the view that animals can do Humean induction (where you see regularities), but not Leibnizian induction (where you see necessities). I say all minds perceive patterns, but only humans can think about the patterns they have perceived.
|
|
16236
|
Maybe our persistence conditions concern bodies, rather than persons [Olson, by Hawley]
|
|
Full Idea:
Instead of attributing person-like persistence conditions to bodies, we could attribute body-like persistence conditions to persons, …so human persons are identical with human organisms.
|
|
From:
report of Eric T. Olson (The Human Animal [1997]) by Katherine Hawley - How Things Persist 5.10
|
|
A reaction:
In the case of pre-birth and advanced senility, Olson thinks we could have the body without the person, so person is a 'phase sortal' of bodies. A good theory, which seems to answer a lot of questions. 'Person' may be an abstraction.
|
|
6669
|
For 'animalism', I exist before I became a person, and can continue after it, so I am not a person [Olson, by Lowe]
|
|
Full Idea:
According to 'animalism', I existed before I was a person and I may well go one existing for some time after I cease to be a person; hence, I am not essentially a person, but a human organism.
|
|
From:
report of Eric T. Olson (The Human Animal [1997]) by E.J. Lowe - Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind Ch.10
|
|
A reaction:
There is a very real sense in which an extremely senile person has 'ceased to exist' (e.g. as the person I used to love). On the whole, though, I think that Olson is right, and yet 'person' is an important concept. Neither concept is all-or-nothing.
|