Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Particulars in Particular Clothing', 'On the Concept of Character' and 'Review of Aron 'Our Knowledge of Universals''

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

---

8 ideas

8. Modes of Existence / B. Properties / 13. Tropes / a. Nature of tropes

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?

18. Thought / D. Concepts / 2. Origin of Concepts / a. Origin of concepts

10645	We reach concepts by clarification, or by definition, or by habitual experience [Price,HH]
	Full Idea: We have three different ways in which we arrive at concepts or universals: there is a clarification, where we have a ready-made concept and define it; we have a combination (where a definition creates a concept); and an experience can lead to a habit.
	From: H.H. Price (Review of Aron 'Our Knowledge of Universals' [1946], p.190)
	A reaction: [very compressed] He cites Russell as calling the third one a 'condensed induction'. There seems to an intellectualist and non-intellectualist strand in the abstractionist tradition.

18. Thought / E. Abstraction / 2. Abstracta by Selection

10644	A 'felt familiarity' with universals is more primitive than abstraction [Price,HH]
	Full Idea: A 'felt familiarity' with universals seems to be more primitive than explicit abstraction.
	From: H.H. Price (Review of Aron 'Our Knowledge of Universals' [1946], p.188)
	A reaction: This I take to be part of the 'given' of the abstractionist view, which is quite well described in the first instance by Aristotle. Price says that it is 'pre-verbal'.

10646	Our understanding of 'dog' or 'house' arises from a repeated experience of concomitances [Price,HH]
	Full Idea: Whether you call it inductive or not, our understanding of such a word as 'dog' or 'house' does arise from a repeated experience of concomitances.
	From: H.H. Price (Review of Aron 'Our Knowledge of Universals' [1946], p.191)
	A reaction: Philosophers don't use phrases like that last one any more. How else could we form the concept of 'dog' - if we are actually allowed to discuss the question of concept-formation, instead of just the logic of concepts.

23. Ethics / C. Virtue Theory / 2. Elements of Virtue Theory / e. Character

23896	We see our character as a restricting limit, but also as an unshakable support [Weil]
	Full Idea: Our character appears to us as a limit by which we do not want to be imprisoned, …but also as a support that we want to believe is unshakable.
	From: Simone Weil (On the Concept of Character [1941], p.100)
	A reaction: A nice perception. It is fairly easy to criticise, or even laugh at, one's own actions, but extremely hard to criticise our own character. Maybe we all wish we were more determined in our projects, but not much else.

23894	The concept of character is at the centre of morality [Weil]
	Full Idea: We cannot pose a moral problem without putting the concept of character at its centre.
	From: Simone Weil (On the Concept of Character [1941], p.98)
	A reaction: The question for Aristotle (which I derive from Philippa Foot) is whether moral goodness simply is good character, or whether it is the actions (or even the consequences). Weil is close to modern virtue theory here.

23893	We don't see character in a single moment, but only over a period of time [Weil]
	Full Idea: Character is constant over a period of time; the way a person is at a single moment does not at all reflect the character of this person. We do, however, concede that character changes.
	From: Simone Weil (On the Concept of Character [1941], p.98)
	A reaction: I do think, though, that there are moments in behaviour which are hugely revealing of character, even in a single remark. But I agree that most single moments do not show much.

23895	We modify our character by placing ourselves in situations, or by attending to what seems trivial [Weil]
	Full Idea: We can modify our character, by putting ourselves in circumstances that will act on us from the outside, …or by the orientation of our attention in the moments that appear most insignificant or indifferent in our lives.
	From: Simone Weil (On the Concept of Character [1941], p.99)
	A reaction: I've never seen anyone address this question (apart from Aristotle's emphasis on training habits). Choosing your source for current affairs information strikes me as very important. What you read, what you watch, who you spend time with…