|
12177
|
Human artefacts may have essences, in their purposes [Popper]
|
|
Full Idea:
One might adopt the view that certain things of our own making, such as clocks, may well be said to have 'essences', viz. their 'purposes', and what makes them serve these purposes.
|
|
From:
Karl Popper (Conjectures and Refutations [1963], 3.3 n17)
|
|
A reaction:
This is from one of the arch-opponents of essentialism. Could we take him on a slippery slope into essences for evolved creatures, or their organs? His argument says admitting an essence for a clock prevents using it for another purpose.
|
|
3643
|
The concept of mind excludes body, and vice versa [Descartes]
|
|
Full Idea:
The concept of body includes nothing at all which belongs to the mind, and the concept of mind includes nothing at all which belongs to the body.
|
|
From:
René Descartes (Reply to Fourth Objections [1641], 225)
|
|
A reaction:
A headache? Hunger? The mistake, I think, is to regard the mind as entirely conscious, thus creating a sharp boundary between two aspects of our lives. As shown by blindsight, I take many of my central mental operations to be pre- or non-conscious.
|
|
12175
|
Galilean science aimed at true essences, as the ultimate explanations [Popper]
|
|
Full Idea:
The third of the Galilean doctrines of science is that the best, the truly scientific theories, describe the 'essences' or the 'essential natures' of things - the realities which lie behind the appearances. They are ultimate explanations.
|
|
From:
Karl Popper (Conjectures and Refutations [1963], 3.3)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to be the seventeenth century doctrine which was undermined by Humeanism, and hence despised by Popper, but is now making a comeback, with a new account of essence and necessity.
|