|
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.
|
|
9212
|
Possible states of affairs are not propositions; a proposition can't be a state of affairs! [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
Possible states of affairs have often been taken to be propositions, but this cannot be correct, since any possible state of affairs is possibly a state of affairs, but no proposition is possibly a state of affairs.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (The Problem of Possibilia [2003], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
The point is, presumably, that the state of affairs cannot be the proposition itself, but (at least) what the proposition refers to. I can't see any objection to that.
|
|
9213
|
The actual world is a possible world, so we can't define possible worlds as 'what might have been' [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
A possible world can't be defined (by Stalnaker and Plantinga) as a way the world might have been, because a possible world is possibly the world, yet no way the world might have been is possibly the world.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (The Problem of Possibilia [2003], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
His point is that any definition of a possible world must cover the actual world, because that is one of them. 'Might have been' is not applicable to the actual world. It seems a fairly important starting point for discussion of possible worlds.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
3285
|
We may be unable to abandon personal identity, even when split-brains have undermined it [Nagel]
|
|
Full Idea:
As a result of the evidence of split-brains, it is possible that the ordinary, simple idea of a single person will come to seem quaint some day, …but we may be unable to abandon the idea, no matter what we discover.
|
|
From:
Thomas Nagel (Brain Bisection and Unity of Consciousness [1971], p.164)
|
|
A reaction:
I'm not sure what grounds you can have for a claim that we can't abandon our current view of selves, even when the new reality will be utterly different. Rather conservative? I would expect future concepts to roughly match future reality.
|