4 ideas
| 14961 | Clearly a pipe can survive being taken apart [Cartwright,R] |
| Full Idea: There is at the moment a pipe on my desk. Its stem has been removed but it remains a pipe for all that; otherwise no pipe could survive a thorough cleaning. | |
| From: Richard Cartwright (Scattered Objects [1974], p.175) | |
| A reaction: To say that the pipe survives dismantling is not to say that it is fully a pipe during its dismantled phase. He gives a further example of a book in two volumes. |
| 14962 | Bodies don't becomes scattered by losing small or minor parts [Cartwright,R] |
| Full Idea: If a branch falls from a tree, the tree does not thereby become scattered, and a human body does not become scattered upon loss of a bit of fingernail. | |
| From: Richard Cartwright (Scattered Objects [1974], p.184) | |
| A reaction: This sort of observation draws me towards essentialism. A body is scattered if you divide it in a major way, but not if you separate off a minor part. It isn't just a matter of size, or even function. We have broader idea of what is essential. |
| 7639 | The Homunculus Fallacy explains a subject perceiving objects by repeating the problem internally [Evans] |
| Full Idea: The 'homunculus fallacy' attempts to explain what is involved in a subject's being related to objects in the external world by appealing to the existence of an inner situation which recapitulates the essential features of the original situation. | |
| From: Gareth Evans (Molyneux's Question [1978], p.397) | |
| A reaction: This is obviously right, but we aren't forced to settle for direct realism. Inner perception may be very different, or we may employ the idea of Dennett and Lycan, that the homunculi don't regress, they deteriorate steadily down into mechanisms. |
| 14470 | Explanatory exclusion: there cannot be two separate complete explanations of a single event [Kim] |
| Full Idea: The general principle of explanatory exclusion states that two or more complete and independent explanations of the same event or phenomenon cannot coexist. | |
| From: Jaegwon Kim (Mechanism, purpose and explan. exclusion [1989], 3) | |
| A reaction: This is a rather optimistic view of explanations, with a strong element of reality involved. I would have thought there were complete explanations at different 'levels', which were complementary to one another. |