|
17620
|
Critics of if-thenism say that not all starting points, even consistent ones, are worth studying [Maddy]
|
|
Full Idea:
If-thenism denies that mathematics is in the business of discovering truths about abstracta. ...[their opponents] obviously don't regard any starting point, even a consistent one, as equally worthy of investigation.
|
|
From:
Penelope Maddy (Defending the Axioms [2011], 3.3)
|
|
A reaction:
I have some sympathy with if-thenism, in that you can obviously study the implications of any 'if' you like, but deep down I agree with the critics.
|
|
16083
|
Aristotelian matter seriously threatens the intrinsic unity and substantiality of its object [Gill,ML]
|
|
Full Idea:
On the interpretation of Aristotelian matter that I shall propose, matter seriously threatens the intrinsic unity, and hence the substantiality, of the object to which it contributes.
|
|
From:
Mary Louise Gill (Aristotle on Substance [1989], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
Presumably the thought is that if an object is form+matter (hylomorphism), then forms are essentially unified, but matter is essentially unified and sloppy.
|
|
17006
|
Prime matter has no place in Aristotle's theories, and passages claiming it are misread [Gill,ML]
|
|
Full Idea:
I argue that prime matter has no place in Aristotle's elemental theory. ..References to prime matter are found in Aristotle's work because his theory was thought to need the doctrine. If I am right, these passages will all admit of another interpretation.
|
|
From:
Mary Louise Gill (Aristotle on Substance [1989], App)
|
|
A reaction:
If correct, this strikes me as important for the history of ideas, because scholastics got themselves in a right tangle over prime matter. See Pasnau on it. It pushed the 17th century into corpuscularianism.
|
|
6616
|
Least action is not a causal law, but a 'global law', describing a global essence [Ellis]
|
|
Full Idea:
The principle of least action is not a causal law, but is what I call a 'global law', which describes the essence of the global kind, which every object in the universe necessarily instantiates.
|
|
From:
Brian Ellis (Katzav on limitations of dispositions [2005])
|
|
A reaction:
As a fan of essentialism I find this persuasive. If I inherit part of my essence from being a mammal, I inherit other parts of my essence from being an object, and all objects would share that essence, so it would look like a 'law' for all objects.
|
|
6615
|
A species requires a genus, and its essence includes the essence of the genus [Ellis]
|
|
Full Idea:
A specific universal can exist only if the generic universal of which it is a species exists, but generic universals don't depend on species; …the essence of any genus is included in its species, but not conversely.
|
|
From:
Brian Ellis (Katzav on limitations of dispositions [2005], 91)
|
|
A reaction:
Thus the species 'electron' would be part of the genus 'lepton', or 'human' part of 'mammal'. The point of all this is to show how individual items connect up with the rest of the universe, giving rise to universal laws, such as Least Action.
|
|
6614
|
A hierarchy of natural kinds is elaborate ontology, but needed to explain natural laws [Ellis]
|
|
Full Idea:
The hierarchy of natural kinds proposed by essentialism may be more elaborate than is strictly required for purposes of ontology, but it is necessary to explain the necessity of the laws of nature, and the universal applicability of global principles.
|
|
From:
Brian Ellis (Katzav on limitations of dispositions [2005], 91)
|
|
A reaction:
I am all in favour of elaborating ontology in the name of best explanation. There seem, though, to be some remaining ontological questions at the point where the explanations of essentialism run out.
|
|
6612
|
Without general principles, we couldn't predict the behaviour of dispositional properties [Ellis]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is objected to dispositionalism that without the principle of least action, or some general principle of equal power, the specific dispositional properties of things could tell us very little about how these things would be disposed to behave.
|
|
From:
Brian Ellis (Katzav on limitations of dispositions [2005], 90)
|
|
A reaction:
Ellis attempts to meet this criticism, by placing dispositional properties within a hierarchy of broader properties. There remains a nagging doubt about how essentialism can account for space, time, order, and the existence of essences.
|