41 ideas
14027 | If we are to use words in enquiry, we need their main, unambiguous and uncontested meanings [Epicurus] |
Full Idea: It is necessary that we look to the primary conception corresponding to each word and that it stand in no need of demonstration, if, that is, we are going to have something to which we can refer the object of search or puzzlement and opinion. | |
From: Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 38) | |
A reaction: This either points to definition or to consensus, and since definition seems in danger of some sort of Quinean circularity, I favour consensus. Philosophy is, after all, people discussing things, not inscriptions sent to the gods. |
14040 | Observation and applied thought are always true [Epicurus] |
Full Idea: Everything that is observed or grasped by the intellect in an act of application is true. | |
From: Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 62) | |
A reaction: Not quite clear what he means, but Epicurus is committed to perception as the source of knowledge, with the intellect extending the findings of the senses. He might subscribe to Descartes's 'clear and distinct' perceptions. |
11211 | If a sound conclusion comes from two errors that cancel out, the path of the argument must matter [Rumfitt] |
Full Idea: If a designated conclusion follows from the premisses, but the argument involves two howlers which cancel each other out, then the moral is that the path an argument takes from premisses to conclusion does matter to its logical evaluation. | |
From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], II) | |
A reaction: The drift of this is that our view of logic should be a little closer to the reasoning of ordinary language, and we should rely a little less on purely formal accounts. |
11210 | Standardly 'and' and 'but' are held to have the same sense by having the same truth table [Rumfitt] |
Full Idea: If 'and' and 'but' really are alike in sense, in what might that likeness consist? Some philosophers of classical logic will reply that they share a sense by virtue of sharing a truth table. | |
From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000]) | |
A reaction: This is the standard view which Rumfitt sets out to challenge. |
11212 | The sense of a connective comes from primitively obvious rules of inference [Rumfitt] |
Full Idea: A connective will possess the sense that it has by virtue of its competent users' finding certain rules of inference involving it to be primitively obvious. | |
From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], III) | |
A reaction: Rumfitt cites Peacocke as endorsing this view, which characterises the logical connectives by their rules of usage rather than by their pure semantic value. |
17867 | If a concept is not compact, it will not be presentable to finite minds [Almog] |
Full Idea: If the notion of 'logically following' in your language is not compact, it will not be locally presentable to finite minds. | |
From: Joseph Almog (Nature Without Essence [2010], 02) |
17877 | The number series is primitive, not the result of some set theoretic axioms [Almog] |
Full Idea: On Skolem's account, to 'get' the natural numbers - that primal structure - do not 'look for it' as the satisfier of some abstract (set-theoretic) axiomatic essence; start with that primitive structure. | |
From: Joseph Almog (Nature Without Essence [2010], 12) | |
A reaction: [Skolem 1922 and 1923] Almog says the numbers are just 0,1,2,3,4..., and not some underlying axioms. That makes it sound as if they have nothing in common, and that the successor relation is a coincidence. |
14028 | Nothing comes to be from what doesn't exist [Epicurus] |
Full Idea: Nothing comes into being from what is not. | |
From: Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 38) | |
A reaction: King Lear puts it better: Nothing will come of nothing [1.i]. There seems to be an underlying assumption that coming into being out of nothing is much weirder than just existing, but I am not convinced about that. It's all equally weird. |
14029 | If disappearing things went to nothingness, nothing could return, and it would all be gone by now [Epicurus] |
Full Idea: If that which disappears were destroyed into what is not, all things would have been destroyed, since that into which they were dissolved does not exist. | |
From: Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 39) | |
A reaction: This follows on from Idea 14028. Theologians will immediately spot that this is the underlying principle cited by Aquinas in his Third Way for proving God's existence (Idea 1431). |
14030 | The totality is complete, so there is no room for it to change, and nothing extraneous to change it [Epicurus] |
Full Idea: The totality of things has always been just like it is now and always will be. For there is nothing for it to change into. For there exists nothing in addition to the totality, which could enter into it and produce the change. | |
From: Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 39) | |
A reaction: This smacks of the sort of dubious arguments that the medieval theologians fell in love with. I never thought I'd say this, but I think Epicurus needs a comprehensive course in set theory before he makes remarks like this. |
14048 | Astronomical movements are blessed, but they don't need the help of the gods [Epicurus] |
Full Idea: Movements, turnings, risings, settings, and related phenomena occur without any god helping out and ordaining or being about to ordain things, and at the same time have complete blessedness and indestructibility. | |
From: Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 76) | |
A reaction: Epicurus is sometimes accused of atheism for remarks like these, but he is always trying to show piety in his attitudes. We might now call this attitude 'deism' (see alphabetical themes). |
14044 | The perceived accidental properties of bodies cannot be conceived of as independent natures [Epicurus] |
Full Idea: The shapes, colours, sizes and weights which are predicated of body as accidents, ...and are known by sense-perception, must not be thought of as independent natures (for that is inconceivable). | |
From: Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 68) | |
A reaction: I take this to be an anti-platonist remark, though he is not denying that the accidental properties may have some universal character. I'm struck by how close the basic metaphysics of Epicurus is to that of Aristotle. |
14045 | Accidental properties give a body its nature, but are not themselves bodies or parts of bodies [Epicurus] |
Full Idea: Accidental qualities are not non-existent, nor are they distinct corporeal entities inhering in the body, nor parts of it. We should think that the whole body throughout derives its permanent nature from these properties, though not as a compound of them. | |
From: Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 69) | |
A reaction: 'Permanent' nature sounds more like essential than accidental properties. This is uncomfortably negative in its attempt to pin down what accidental properties are. The last bit seems to deny the bundle view of objects. Would he like tropes? |
14046 | A 'body' is a conception of an aggregate, with properties defined by application conditions [Epicurus] |
Full Idea: Properties are known by their peculiar forms of application and comprehension, in close accompaniment with the aggregate [of atoms], which is given the predicate 'body' by reference to the aggregate conception. | |
From: Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 69) | |
A reaction: There is an interesting hint here of how to think of properties (as both applying and comprehended in some distinctive way), and a suggestion that there is something conventional about bodies, depending on how we conceive them. |
17871 | Fregean meanings are analogous to conceptual essence, defining a kind [Almog] |
Full Idea: Ever since Frege, semantic definitionalists have posited a meaning ('sinn') for a name; the meaning/sinn is their semantic analog to the conceptual essence, as ontologically defining of the kind. | |
From: Joseph Almog (Nature Without Essence [2010], 07) |
17866 | Essential definition aims at existence conditions and structural truths [Almog] |
Full Idea: The essentialist encapsulating formula is meant to be existence-exhaustive (an attribute the satisfaction of which is logically necessary and sufficient to be the thing) and truth-exhaustive (promising all the structural truths). | |
From: Joseph Almog (Nature Without Essence [2010], 01) | |
A reaction: [compressed] If he thinks essentialism means that one short phrase can achieve all this, then it is not surprising that Almog renounces his former essentialism in this essay. He may, however, have misunderstood. He should reread Aristotle. |
17868 | Surface accounts aren't exhaustive as they always allow unintended twin cases [Almog] |
Full Idea: A surface-functional characterisation is not exhaustive. It allows unintended twins, alien intruders with different structures - water lookalikes that are not H2O and lookalike infinite structures that are not the natural numbers. | |
From: Joseph Almog (Nature Without Essence [2010], 03) | |
A reaction: He rests this on the claim in mathematical logic that fully expressive systems are always non-categorical (having unintended twins). Set theory is not fully categorical, but Peano Arithmetic is. Almog's main anti-essentialist argument. |
17872 | Definitionalists rely on snapshot-concepts, instead of on the real processes [Almog] |
Full Idea: The definitionalist errs by abstracting away from differences cosmic processes, freezing real, dynamic processes in snapshot-concepts. | |
From: Joseph Almog (Nature Without Essence [2010], 08) | |
A reaction: You could hardly do science at all if you didn't 'abstract away from the differences in cosmic processes'. We can't write about sea-waves, because they all differ slightly? 'Electron' is a snapshot concept. |
14047 | Bodies have impermanent properties, and permanent ones which define its conceived nature [Epicurus] |
Full Idea: Impermanent properties do not have the nature of an entire thing, which we call a body when we grasp it in aggregate, nor the nature of permanent accompaniments without which it is not possible to conceive of a body. | |
From: Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 70) | |
A reaction: Epicurus doesn't discuss essences, but this seems to commit to the basic Aristotelian idea, that there there are some properties which actually bestow identity, and then others which are optional for that thing. The 'conception' is always mentioned. |
17870 | Alien 'tigers' can't be tigers if they are not related to our tigers [Almog] |
Full Idea: Animals roaming jungles on some planet at the other end of the galaxy with the tiger-look and the tiger genetic make-up but with a disjoint evolutionary history are not the same species as the earthly tigers. | |
From: Joseph Almog (Nature Without Essence [2010], 10) | |
A reaction: I disagree. If two independent cultures build boats, they are both boats. If we manufacture a tiger which can breed with other tigers, we've made a tiger. His 'tigers' would scream for explanation, precisely because they are tigers. If not, no puzzle. |
17869 | Kripke and Putnam offer an intermediary between real and nominal essences [Almog] |
Full Idea: Kripke and Putnam offer us enhanced essences, still formulable in one short sentence and locally graspable. They offer between Locke's mind-boggling definitive real essence and his mind-friendly but not definitive nominal essence. | |
From: Joseph Almog (Nature Without Essence [2010], 04) | |
A reaction: The solution is to add a 'deep structure' which serves both ends. |
17876 | Individual essences are just cobbled together classificatory predicates [Almog] |
Full Idea: The key for the essentialist is classificatory predication. It is only a subsequent extension of this prime idea that leads us to cobble together enough such essential predications to make an individuative essential property. | |
From: Joseph Almog (Nature Without Essence [2010], 11) | |
A reaction: So the essence is just a cross-reference of all the ways we can think of to classify it? I don't think so. Which are the essential classifications? |
14039 | Above and below us will never appear to be the same, because it is inconceivable [Epicurus] |
Full Idea: What is over our heads ...or what is below any point which we think of ...will never appear to us as being at the same time and in the same respect both up and down. For it is impossible to conceive of this. | |
From: Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 60) | |
A reaction: Note that he says it will 'never appear to us' as both - not that it absolutely cannot be both. Both Aristotle and Epicurus are much more focused on how our humanity shapes our metaphysics than the modern pure metaphysicians are. |
14050 | We aim to dissolve our fears, by understanding their causes [Epicurus] |
Full Idea: If we give a correct and complete causal account of the source of our disturbance and fears, we will dissolve them, by accounting for the phenomena to which we are constantly exposed, and which terrify other men most severely. | |
From: Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 82) | |
A reaction: Notice 'other' men! This eudaimonist aim lies at the heart of Epicurus's physical account of the world. He was primarily interested in living better, rather than in physical science. He seeks 'tranquillity' and 'freedom from disturbance'. |
14037 | Atoms only have shape, weight and size, and the properties which accompany shape [Epicurus] |
Full Idea: One must believe that the atoms bring with them none of the qualities of things which appear except shape, weight, and size and the properties which necessarily accompany shape. | |
From: Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 54) | |
A reaction: This appears to be fairly precisely a claim that atoms only have primary qualities, though that terminology only came in in the seventeenth century. I take the view to be more or less correct. |
6010 | Illusions are not false perceptions, as we accurately perceive the pattern of atoms [Epicurus, by Modrak] |
Full Idea: Epicurus says illusions are not false perceptions, because the senses accurately report the pattern of atoms; for instance, the edges are worn off the pattern produced by a square tower, so its perception as a round tower is true. | |
From: report of Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 47-53) by Deborah K.W. Modrak - Classical theories of Mind | |
A reaction: As so often, Epicurus got it right, because Democritus got it right, thus demonstrating that good philosophy must be preceded by good physics. However, good physics must be preceded and followed by good philosophy. |
14041 | The soul is fine parts distributed through the body, resembling hot breath [Epicurus] |
Full Idea: The soul is a body made up of fine parts distributed throught the entire aggregate, most closely resembling breath with a certain admixture of heat, in one way resembling breath and in another resembling heat | |
From: Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 63) | |
A reaction: Remember that 'psuché' refers as much to the life within a creature as it does to the consciousness. The stoics seem to have held a similar view. |
14042 | The soul cannot be incorporeal, because then it could neither act nor be acted upon [Epicurus] |
Full Idea: Those who say that the soul is incorporeal are speaking to no point; for if it were of that character, it could neither act nor be acted upon at all. | |
From: Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 67) | |
A reaction: This just is the causal argument, which is espoused by Papineau and other modern physicalists. Personally I am inclined to agree with Papineau, that it is so simple and conclusive that it is hardly worth discussing further. Dualism needs a miracle. |
17873 | Water must be related to water, just as tigers must be related to tigers [Almog] |
Full Idea: It is a blindspot to say that to be a tiger one must come from tigers, but to be water one needn't come from water. ...The error lies in not appreciating that to be water one still must come from somewhere in the cosmos, indeed, from hydrogen and oxygen. | |
From: Joseph Almog (Nature Without Essence [2010], 09) | |
A reaction: A unified picture is indeed desirable, but a better solution is to say that the essence of a tiger is in its structure, not in its origins. There are many ways to produce an artefact. There could be many ways to produce a tiger. |
11214 | We learn 'not' along with affirmation, by learning to either affirm or deny a sentence [Rumfitt] |
Full Idea: The standard view is that affirming not-A is more complex than affirming the atomic sentence A itself, with the latter determining its sense. But we could learn 'not' directly, by learning at once how to either affirm A or reject A. | |
From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], IV) | |
A reaction: [compressed] This seems fairly anti-Fregean in spirit, because it looks at the psychology of how we learn 'not' as a way of clarifying what we mean by it, rather than just looking at its logical behaviour (and thus giving it a secondary role). |
14032 | Totality has no edge; an edge implies a contrast beyond the edge, and there can't be one [Epicurus] |
Full Idea: The totality is unlimited. For what is limited has an extreme; but an extreme is seen in contrast to something else, so that since it has no extreme it has no limit. | |
From: Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 41) | |
A reaction: I presume that the 'limit' is the edge, and the 'extreme' is what is beyond the edge. Why could not the extreme be nothingness, which then contrast dramatically with what exists? |
14033 | Bodies are unlimited as well as void, since the two necessarily go together [Epicurus] |
Full Idea: The number of bodies and the magnitude of the void are unlimited. If void were unlimited, and bodies limited, bodies move in scattered fashion with no support of checking collisions; in limited void, unlimited bodies would not have a place to be in. | |
From: Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 42) | |
A reaction: Seems good. The point is that without collisions, bodies would not stop relative to one another, and combine to form the objects we perceive. Of course if the started off (anathema!) stuck together, they may not have dispersed yet. |
14034 | There exists an infinity of each shape of atom, but the number of shapes is beyond our knowledge [Epicurus] |
Full Idea: For each type of shape there is an unlimited number of similar atoms, but with respect to the differences they are not simply unlimited but ungraspable. | |
From: Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 42) | |
A reaction: Epicurus's view of the nature of atoms rests on his empiricism, so while he can reason from experience to how they must be, he admits (impressively) his ignorance of the full facts. He has arguments for the unlimited number. |
14035 | Atoms just have shape, size and weight; colour results from their arrangement [Epicurus] |
Full Idea: There are not even any qualities in atoms, except shape and size and weight; their colour changes according to the arrangement of the atoms. | |
From: Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 44 schol) | |
A reaction: [This is quoted by a 'scholiast' - an early writer quoting from Epicurus's '12 Basic Principles'] He appears to have got this one wrong, as it is evidently the type of atom, as well as the arrangement, which contributes to the colour. |
14038 | There cannot be unlimited division, because it would reduce things to non-existence [Epicurus] |
Full Idea: One must eliminate unlimited division into smaller pieces (to avoid making everything weak and being forced in our comprehensive grasps of compound things to exhaust the things which exist by reducing them to non-existence). | |
From: Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 56) | |
A reaction: A basic argument for atoms, but it seems to rest on Zenonian paradoxes about infinite subdivision. An infinite subdivision of a unit doesn't seem to turn it into zero. |
14049 | We aim to know the natures which are observed in natural phenomena [Epicurus] |
Full Idea: Blessedness lies in knowing the natures which are observed in meteorological phenomena. | |
From: Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 78) | |
A reaction: This pursuit of 'natures' seems to be at the heart of scientific essentialism. Epicurus demonstrates his proposal, by offering speculations about the natures of all sorts of phenomena (esp. in 'Letter to Pythocles'). |
17864 | Defining an essence comes no where near giving a thing's nature [Almog] |
Full Idea: The natures of things are neither exhausted nor even partially given by 'defining essences'. | |
From: Joseph Almog (Nature Without Essence [2010], Intro) | |
A reaction: A better criticism of essentialism. 'Natures' is a much vaguer word than 'essences', however, because the latter refers to what is stable and important, whereas natures could include any aspect. Being ticklish is in my nature, but not in my essence. |
17863 | Essences promise to reveal reality, but actually drive us away from it [Almog] |
Full Idea: The essentialist line (one I trace to Aristotle, Descartes and Kripke) is driving us away from, not closer to, the real nature of things. It promised a sort of Hubble telescope - essences - able to reveal the deep structure of reality. | |
From: Joseph Almog (Nature Without Essence [2010], Intro) | |
A reaction: I suspect this is tilting at a straw man. No one thinks we should hunt for essences instead of doing normal science. 'Essence' just labels what you've got when you succeed. |
14043 | The void cannot interact, but just gives the possibility of motion [Epicurus] |
Full Idea: The void can neither act nor be acted upon but merely provides the possibility of motion through itself for bodies. | |
From: Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 67) | |
A reaction: Epicurus follows this with the anti-dualist Idea 14042, but he is at least offering the notion of something which exists without powers of causal interaction. Does space undermine the causal criterion for existence? |
14031 | Space must exist, since movement is obvious, and there must be somewhere to move in [Epicurus] |
Full Idea: If there did not exist that which we call void and space and intangible nature, bodies would not have any place to be in or move through, as they obviously do move. | |
From: Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 40) | |
A reaction: The observation that 'they obviously do move' must be aimed at followers of Parmenides. The idea of the void seems to contain a Newtonian commitment to absolute space. |
14036 | There are endless cosmoi, some like and some unlike this one [Epicurus] |
Full Idea: There is an unlimited number of cosmoi, and some are similar to this one and some are dissimilar. | |
From: Epicurus (Letter to Herodotus [c.293 BCE], 45) |