Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Space, Knowledge and Power (interview)', 'Aristotle on Matter' and 'The Epic of Gilgamesh'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these texts

---

8 ideas

1. Philosophy / C. History of Philosophy / 4. Later European Philosophy / c. Eighteenth century philosophy

15045	The big issue since the eighteenth century has been: what is Reason? Its effect, limits and dangers? [Foucault]
	Full Idea: I think the central issue of philosophy and critical thought since the eighteenth century has always been, still is, and will, I hope, remain the question: What is this Reason that we use? What are its historical effects? What are its limits and dangers?
	From: Michel Foucault (Space, Knowledge and Power (interview) [1982], p.358)
	A reaction: One can hardly deny the fairness of the question, but I hope that won't prevent us from trying to be rational. Maybe logicians do a better job of clarifying reason than the political and historical speculations of Foucault?

2. Reason / D. Definition / 4. Real Definition

12302	Definitions formed an abstract hierarchy for Aristotle, as sets do for us [Fine,K]
	Full Idea: For us it is sets which constitute the most natural example of a hierarchical structure within the abstract realm; but for Aristotle it would have been definitions, via their natural division into genus and differentia.
	From: Kit Fine (Aristotle on Matter [1992], §1 n4)
	A reaction: I suppose everyone who thinks about reality in abstraction ends up with a hierarchy. Compare the hierarchy of angelic hosts, or Greek gods. Could we get back to the Aristotelian view, instead of sets, which are out of control at the top end?

2. Reason / D. Definition / 5. Genus and Differentia

14266	Aristotle sees hierarchies in definitions using genus and differentia (as we see them in sets) [Fine,K]
	Full Idea: For us, sets constitute the most natural example of a hierarchical structure within the abstract realm. But for Aristotle it would have been definitions, via their natural division into genus and differentia.
	From: Kit Fine (Aristotle on Matter [1992], 1 n4)
	A reaction: Genus and differentia are only part of the story in Aristotle, and this remarks strikes me as perceptive. It is precisely the mapping of the explanatory hierarchy which Aristotle seeks in a good definition.

7. Existence / C. Structure of Existence / 1. Grounding / c. Grounding and explanation

14268	Maybe bottom-up grounding shows constitution, and top-down grounding shows essence [Fine,K]
	Full Idea: It may be that the two forms of grounding have a different source; the one from the bottom up is required for the constitution of the thing to be intelligible; the one from the top down is required for the essence of the thing to be intelligible.
	From: Kit Fine (Aristotle on Matter [1992], 2)
	A reaction: [He cites Aristotle Met. 1019a8-10 in support] Close reading of Fine would be needed to elucidate this properly, but it is a suggestive line of thought about how we should approach grounding.

9. Objects / C. Structure of Objects / 6. Constitution of an Object

14267	There is no distinctive idea of constitution, because you can't say constitution begins and ends [Fine,K]
	Full Idea: If the parts of a body can constitute a man, then why should men not constitute a family? Why draw the line at the level of the man? ...Thus the idea of a distinctive notion of constitution, terminating in concrete substances, should be given up.
	From: Kit Fine (Aristotle on Matter [1992], 1)
	A reaction: This is in the context of Aristotle, but Fine's view seems to apply to Rudder Baker's distinctive approach.

14264	Is there a plausible Aristotelian notion of constitution, applicable to both physical and non-physical? [Fine,K]
	Full Idea: There is a question of whether there is a viable conception of constitution of the sort Aristotle supposes, one which is uniformly applicable to physical and non-physical objects alike, and which is capable of hierarchical application.
	From: Kit Fine (Aristotle on Matter [1992], 1)
	A reaction: This is part of an explication of Aristotle's 'matter' [hule], which might be better translated as 'ingredients', which would fit non-physical things quite well.

26. Natural Theory / A. Speculations on Nature / 5. Infinite in Nature

8659	The gods alone live forever with Shamash. The days of humans are numbered. [Anon (Gilg)]
	Full Idea: The gods alone are the ones who live forever with Shamash. / As for humans, their days are numbered.
	From: Anon (Gilg) (The Epic of Gilgamesh [c.2300 BCE], 3.2.34), quoted by Michèle Friend - Introducing the Philosophy of Mathematics 1.2
	A reaction: Friend quotes this to show the antiquity of the concept of infinity. It also, of course, shows that Sumerians at that time did not believe in human immortality.

26. Natural Theory / A. Speculations on Nature / 6. Early Matter Theories / a. Greek matter

14265	The components of abstract definitions could play the same role as matter for physical objects [Fine,K]
	Full Idea: If one considers Aristotle's standard example of a definition, then it is plausible that its defining terms ('plane figure' in the case of a circle) should be constitutive of it in the same general way as physical matter constitutes something physical.
	From: Kit Fine (Aristotle on Matter [1992], 1)
	A reaction: It strikes me that an appropriate translation for the Greek 'hule' might be the English 'ingredients', since Fine seems to be right about the broad application of hule in Aristotle.