Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'A Problem about Substitutional Quantification?st1=Saul A. Kripke', 'Introducing Persons' and 'Form, Matter and Substance'

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


8 ideas

1. Philosophy / E. Nature of Metaphysics / 1. Nature of Metaphysics
Much metaphysical debate concerns what is fundamental, rather than what exists [Koslicki]
     Full Idea: Some of the most important debates in metaphysics or ontology do not concern existential questions, but focus on questions of fundamentality.
     From: Kathrin Koslicki (Form, Matter and Substance [2018], 5 Intro)
     A reaction: In modern times we have added the structure of existence to the mere ontological catalogue, and this idea makes another important addition to our concept of metaphysics. She gives disagreement over tropes as an example.
5. Theory of Logic / G. Quantification / 4. Substitutional Quantification
The substitutional quantifier is not in competition with the standard interpretation [Kripke, by Marcus (Barcan)]
     Full Idea: Kripke proposes that the substitutional quantifier is not a replacement for, or in competition with, the standard interpretation.
     From: report of Saul A. Kripke (A Problem about Substitutional Quantification? [1976]) by Ruth Barcan Marcus - Nominalism and Substitutional Quantifiers p.165
9. Objects / B. Unity of Objects / 1. Unifying an Object / a. Intrinsic unification
Structured wholes are united by the teamwork needed for their capacities [Koslicki]
     Full Idea: A structured whole derives its unity from the way in which its parts interact with other parts to allow both the whole and its parts to manifest those of their capacities which require 'team work' among the parts.
     From: Kathrin Koslicki (Form, Matter and Substance [2018], Intro)
     A reaction: This is a culminating thesis of her book. She defends it at length. It looks like a nice theory for things which are lucky enough to have capacities involving teamwork. Does this mean a pebble can't be unified? She wants a dynamic view.
9. Objects / C. Structure of Objects / 2. Hylomorphism / a. Hylomorphism
The form explains kind, structure, unity and activity [Koslicki]
     Full Idea: Hylomorphists tend to agree that the form (rather than matter) explains 1) kind membership, 2) structure, 3) unity, 4) characteristic activities.
     From: Kathrin Koslicki (Form, Matter and Substance [2018], 3.2.1)
     A reaction: [compressed; she explains each of them] Personally I would add continuity through change (statue/clay). Glad to see that kind membership is not part of the form. And what about explaining observed properties? Does form=essence?
9. Objects / D. Essence of Objects / 3. Individual Essences
Hylomorphic compounds need an individual form for transworld identity [Koslicki]
     Full Idea: It is difficult to see how forms could serve as cross-world identity principles for hylomorphic compounds, unless these forms are particular or individual entities.
     From: Kathrin Koslicki (Form, Matter and Substance [2018], 3.4.3)
     A reaction: This is a key part of her objection to treating the form as universal or generic. I agree with her view.
16. Persons / B. Nature of the Self / 5. Self as Associations
Can the mental elements of a 'bundle' exist on their own? [Carruthers]
     Full Idea: If the mind is merely a bundle of states and events, it must be logically possible for the various elements of the bundle to exist on their own.
     From: Peter Carruthers (Introducing Persons [1986], 2.iii (A))
     A reaction: Depends how literally you take the bundle metaphor, and how much you are worried about 'logical' possibility (which only seems to mean imaginable). The answers to these questions do not have to be all-or-nothing.
Why would a thought be a member of one bundle rather than another? [Carruthers]
     Full Idea: What makes it true that a particular thought or experience is a member of one bundle rather than another?
     From: Peter Carruthers (Introducing Persons [1986], 2.iii (B))
     A reaction: I'm not sure if you can answer this nice question without mentioning values. The mental events in are in my bundle because they matter to me (because they are related to my body, for which I am responsible). Compare picking my possessions out of a pile.
16. Persons / D. Continuity of the Self / 2. Mental Continuity / c. Inadequacy of mental continuity
We identify persons before identifying conscious states [Carruthers]
     Full Idea: We can have no conception of the particularity of conscious states prior to, and independently of, a conception of a particularity of persons.
     From: Peter Carruthers (Introducing Persons [1986], 2.iii (C))
     A reaction: agrees with Butler