Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Mahaprajnaparamitashastra', 'Aristotle on Matter' and 'Causation in a Physical World'

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

---

11 ideas

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.

23. Ethics / C. Virtue Theory / 3. Virtues / a. Virtues

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').

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.

26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 1. Causation

8404	Explain single events by general rules, or vice versa, or probability explains both, or they are unconnected [Field,H]
	Full Idea: Some think singular causal claims should be explained in terms of general causal claims; some think the order should be reversed; some think a third thing (e.g. objective probability) will explain both; and some think they are only loosely connected.
	From: Hartry Field (Causation in a Physical World [2003], 2)
	A reaction: I think Ducasse gives the best account, which is the second option, of giving singular causal claims priority. Probability (Mellor) strikes me as a non-starter, and the idea that they are fairly independent seems rather implausible.

26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 5. Direction of causation

8401	Physical laws are largely time-symmetric, so they make a poor basis for directional causation [Field,H]
	Full Idea: It is sometimes pointed out that (perhaps with a few minor exceptions) the fundamental physical laws are completely time-symmetric. If so, then if one is inclined to found causation on fundamental physical law, it isn't evident how directionality gets in.
	From: Hartry Field (Causation in a Physical World [2003], 1)
	A reaction: All my instincts tell me that causation is more fundamental than laws, and that directionality is there at the start. That, though, raises the nice question of how, if causation explains laws, the direction eventually gets left OUT!

8400	Identifying cause and effect is not just conventional; we explain later events by earlier ones [Field,H]
	Full Idea: It is not just that the earlier member of a cause-effect pair is conventionally called the cause; it is also connected with other temporal asymmetries that play an important role in our practices. We tend to explain later events in terms of earlier ones.
	From: Hartry Field (Causation in a Physical World [2003], 1)
	A reaction: We also interfere with the earlier one to affect the later one, and not vice versa (Idea 8363). I am inclined to think that attempting to explain the direction of causation is either pointless or hopeless.

8402	The only reason for adding the notion of 'cause' to fundamental physics is directionality [Field,H]
	Full Idea: Although it is true that the notion of 'cause' is not needed in fundamental physics, even statistical physics, still directionality considerations don't preclude this notion from being consistently added to fundamental physics.
	From: Hartry Field (Causation in a Physical World [2003], 1)
	A reaction: This only makes sense if the notion of cause already has directionality built into it, which I think is correct. The physicist might reply that they don't care about directionality, but the whole idea of an experiment seems to depend on it (Idea 8363).