|
14193
|
'Substance theorists' take modal properties as primitive, without structure, just falling under a sortal [Paul,LA]
|
|
Full Idea:
Some deep essentialists resist the need to explain the structure under de re modal properties, taking them as primitive. One version (which we can call 'substance theory') takes them to fall under a sortal concept, with no further explanation.
|
|
From:
L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
A very helpful identification of what Wiggins stands for, and why I disagree with him. The whole point of essences is to provide a notion that fits in with sciences, which means they must have an explanatory role, which needs structures.
|
|
14195
|
If an object's sort determines its properties, we need to ask what determines its sort [Paul,LA]
|
|
Full Idea:
If the substance essentialist holds that the sort an object belongs to determines its de re modal properties (rather than the other way round), then he needs to give an (ontological, not conceptual) explanation of what determines an object's sort.
|
|
From:
L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
See Idea 14193 for 'substance essentialism'. I find it quite incredible that anyone could think that a thing's sort could determine its properties, rather than the other way round. Even if sortals are conventional, they are not arbitrary.
|
|
14196
|
Substance essentialism says an object is multiple, as falling under various different sortals [Paul,LA]
|
|
Full Idea:
The explanation of material constitution given by substance essentialism is that there are multiple objects. A person is essentially human-shaped (falling under the human sort), while their hunk of tissue is accidentally human-shaped (as tissue).
|
|
From:
L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
At this point sortal essentialism begins to look crazy. Persons are dubious examples (with sneaky dualism involved). A bronze statue is essentially harder to dent than a clay one, because of its bronze. If you remake it of clay, it isn't the same statue.
|
|
14190
|
Deep essentialist objects have intrinsic properties that fix their nature; the shallow version makes it contextual [Paul,LA]
|
|
Full Idea:
Essentialism says that objects have their properties essentially. 'Deep' essentialists take the (nontrivial) essential properties of an object to determine its nature. 'Shallow' essentialists substitute context-dependent truths for the independent ones.
|
|
From:
L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
If the deep essence determines a things nature, we should not need to say 'nontrivial'. This is my bete noire, the confusion of essential properties with necessary ones, where necessary properties (or predicates, at least) can indeed be trivial.
|
|
14189
|
'Modal realists' believe in many concrete worlds, 'actualists' in just this world, 'ersatzists' in abstract other worlds [Paul,LA]
|
|
Full Idea:
A 'modal realist' believes that there are many concrete worlds, while the 'actualist' believes in only one concrete world, the actual world. The 'ersatzist' is an actualist who takes nonactual possible worlds and their contents to be abstracta.
|
|
From:
L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
My view is something like that modal realism is wrong, and actualism is right, and possible worlds (if they really are that useful) are convenient abstract fictions, constructed (if we have any sense) out of the real possibilities in the actual world.
|
|
6474
|
Seeing is not in itself knowledge, but is separate from what is seen, such as a patch of colour [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
Undeniably, knowledge comes through seeing, but it is a mistake to regard the mere seeing itself as knowledge; if we are so to regard it, we must distinguish the seeing from what is seen; a patch of colour is one thing, and our seeing it is another.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (The Analysis of Mind [1921], Lec. VIII)
|
|
A reaction:
This is Russell's 1921 explanation of why he adopted sense-data (but he rejects them later in this paragraph). This gives a simplistic impression of what he intended, which has three components: the object, the 'sensibile', and the sense-datum.
|
|
6476
|
We cannot assume that the subject actually exists, so we cannot distinguish sensations from sense-data [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
If we are to avoid a perfectly gratuitous assumption, we must dispense with the subject as one of the actual ingredients of the world; but when we do this, the possibility of distinguishing the sensation from the sense-datum vanishes.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (The Analysis of Mind [1921], Lec. VIII)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the reason why Russell himself rejected sense-data. It is more normal, I think, to reject them simply as being superfluous. If the subject can simply perceive the sense-data, why can't they just perceive the object more directly?
|
|
6475
|
In perception, the self is just a logical fiction demanded by grammar [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
In perception, the idea of the subject appears to be a logical fiction, like mathematical points and instants; it is introduced, not because observation reveals it, but because it is linguistically convenient and apparently demanded by grammar.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (The Analysis of Mind [1921], Lec. VIII)
|
|
A reaction:
In 1912, Russell had felt that both the Cogito, and the experience of meta-thought, had confirmed the existence of a non-permanent ego, but here he offers a Humean rejection. His notion of a 'logical fiction' is behaviouristic. I believe in the Self.
|