13952
|
Essentialism says some of a thing's properties are necessary, and could not be absent [Cartwright,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
Essentialism, as I shall understand it, is the doctrine that among the attributes of a thing some are essential, others merely accidental. Its essential attributes are those it has necessarily, those it could not have lacked.
|
|
From:
Richard Cartwright (Some Remarks on Essentialism [1968], p.149)
|
|
A reaction:
The problem with this, which Cartwright does not address, is that trivial and gerrymandered properties (such as having self-identity, or being 'such that 2+2=4') seem to be necessarily, but don't seem to constitute the essence of a thing.
|
13953
|
An act of ostension doesn't seem to need a 'sort' of thing, even of a very broad kind [Cartwright,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
For an ostension to be successful it is surely not necessary that I gather what sort of object it is you have indicated, such as being a horse or a zebra. I may even gather which thing you have indicated without knowing that it is a mammal or even alive.
|
|
From:
Richard Cartwright (Some Remarks on Essentialism [1968], p.157)
|
|
A reaction:
This nicely articulates the objection I have always felt to Geach's relative identity. 'Oh my God, what the hell is THAT???' is probably going to be a successful act of verbal reference, even while explicitly denying all knowledge of sortals.
|
7903
|
The six perfections are giving, morality, patience, vigour, meditation, and wisdom [Nagarjuna]
|
|
Full Idea:
The six perfections are of giving, morality, patience, vigour, meditation, and wisdom.
|
|
From:
Nagarjuna (Mahaprajnaparamitashastra [c.120], 88)
|
|
A reaction:
What is 'morality', if giving is not part of it? I like patience and vigour being two of the virtues, which immediately implies an Aristotelian mean (which is always what is 'appropriate').
|
15251
|
The attribution of necessity to causation is either primitive animism, or confusion with logical necessity [Ayer]
|
|
Full Idea:
How are we to explain the word 'must' [about causation]? The answer is, I think, that it is either a relic of animism, or else reveals an inclination to treat causal connexion as if it were a form of logical necessity.
|
|
From:
A.J. Ayer (The Foundations of Empirical Knowledge [1940], IV.18)
|
|
A reaction:
The animism proposal just about makes sense (as a primitive feature of minds), but why would anyone, if they had the time and understanding, dream of treating a regular connection as a 'logical' necessity?
|