|
10529
|
If Hume's Principle can define numbers, we needn't worry about its truth [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
Neo-Fregeans have thought that Hume's Principle, and the like, might be definitive of number and therefore not subject to the usual epistemological worries over its truth.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Precis of 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], p.310)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to be the underlying dream of logicism - that arithmetic is actually brought into existence by definitions, rather than by truths derived from elsewhere. But we must be able to count physical objects, as well as just counting numbers.
|
|
10530
|
Hume's Principle is either adequate for number but fails to define properly, or vice versa [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
The fundamental difficulty facing the neo-Fregean is to either adopt the predicative reading of Hume's Principle, defining numbers, but inadequate, or the impredicative reading, which is adequate, but not really a definition.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Precis of 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], p.312)
|
|
A reaction:
I'm not sure I understand this, but the general drift is the difficulty of building a system which has been brought into existence just by definition.
|
|
16614
|
Matter and form give true unity; subject and accident is just unity 'per accidens' [Duns Scotus]
|
|
Full Idea:
From matter and form comes one thing per se. This is not so for subject and accident. Matter and form are instrinsic causes of a composite being, but whiteness and a human being are not. Humans can exist without whiteness, so it is one thing per accidens.
|
|
From:
John Duns Scotus (Oxford Commentary on Sentences [1301], II.12.1.14), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671
|
|
A reaction:
This isn't much of a theory, but at least it is focusing on an interesting question, and the distinction between genuinely unified, and unified by chance. Compare a loving couple with siblings who hate each other.
|
|
11842
|
If short-lived happenings like car crashes are 'events', why not long-lived events like Dover Cliffs? [Broad]
|
|
Full Idea:
We call a lightning flash or a motor accident an event, but refuse to apply this to the cliffs of Dover. ...But quantitative differences (of time) give no good grounds for calling one bit of history an event, and refusing the name to another bit.
|
|
From:
C.D. Broad (Scientific Thought [1923], p.54), quoted by David Wiggins - Sameness and Substance Renewed 2.3 n13
|
|
A reaction:
Wiggins calls this proposal a 'terrible absurdity', but it seems to me to demand attention. There is a case to be made for a 'process' to be the fundamental category of our ontology, with stable physical objects seen in that light.
|
|
10527
|
An abstraction principle should not 'inflate', producing more abstractions than objects [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
If an abstraction principle is going to be acceptable, then it should not 'inflate', i.e. it should not result in there being more abstracts than there are objects. By this mark Hume's Principle will be acceptable, but Frege's Law V will not.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Precis of 'Limits of Abstraction' [2005], p.307)
|
|
A reaction:
I take this to be motivated by my own intuition that abstract concepts had better be rooted in the world, or they are not worth the paper they are written on. The underlying idea this sort of abstraction is that it is 'shared' between objects.
|
|
14609
|
We could say present and past exist, but not future, so that each event adds to the total history [Broad]
|
|
Full Idea:
One theory accepts the reality of the present and the past, but holds that the future is simply nothing at all. Nothing has happened to the present by becoming past except that fresh slices of existence have been added to the total history of the world.
|
|
From:
C.D. Broad (Scientific Thought [1923], II)
|
|
A reaction:
This is now known as Broad's 'Growing Block' view of time. It is tempting to say that neither past nor future exist, but it seems undeniable that statements about the past can be wholly true, unlike those about the future.
|
|
22933
|
We imagine the present as a spotlight, moving across events from past to future [Broad]
|
|
Full Idea:
We imagine presentness moving, like the spot of light from a policeman's bulls eye traversing the fronts of houses in a street. What is illuminated is present, what was illuminated is past, and what is not yet illuminated is the future.
|
|
From:
C.D. Broad (Scientific Thought [1923], II)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the 'moving spotlight' compromise theory, which retains the B-series eternal sequence of ordered events, but adds the A-series privileged present moment. Le Poidevin says Broad represents time twice over.
|