3 ideas
18431 | Internal relations combine some tropes into a nucleus, which bears the non-essential tropes [Simons, by Edwards] |
Full Idea: Simons's 'nuclear' option blends features of the substratum and bundle theories. First we have tropes collected by virtue of their internal relations, forming the essential kernel or nucleus. This nucleus then bears the non-essential tropes. | |
From: report of Peter Simons (Particulars in Particular Clothing [1994], p.567) by Douglas Edwards - Properties 3.5 | |
A reaction: [compression of Edwards's summary] This strikes me as being a remarkably good theory. I am not sure of the ontological status of properties, such that they can (unaided) combine to make part of an object. What binds the non-essentials? |
3648 | Empiricists are collecting ants; rationalists are spinning spiders; and bees do both [Bacon] |
Full Idea: Empiricists are like ants; they collect and put to use; but rationalists, like spiders, spin threads out of themselves. (…and bees follow the middle way, of collecting material and transforming it). | |
From: Francis Bacon (Cogitata et Visa [1607]) | |
A reaction: Nice (and so concisely expressed). Bees seem to be just more intelligent and energetic empiricists. |
17319 | There are 'conceptual' explanations, with their direction depending on complexity [Schnieder] |
Full Idea: The direction of conceptual explanations seems to be owed to factors of conceptual complexity and primitiveness. | |
From: Benjamin Schnieder (Truth-making without Truth-makers [2006], p.33), quoted by David Liggins - Truth-makers and dependence 10.2 | |
A reaction: Schnieder proposes that there are just 'causal' and 'conceptual' explanations. Liggins objects that there are other types of dependence which offer explanations. |