605 ideas
| 16281 | Honesty requires philosophical theories we can commit to with our ordinary commonsense [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The maxim of honesty: never put forward a philosophical theory that you yourself cannot believe in your least philosophical and most commonsensical moments. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 2.8) | |
| A reaction: I take it as important that this test is according to the philosopher's commonsense, and not according to some populist idea. This would allow, for example, for commonsense to be sensitive to scientific knowledge, or awareness of the logic. |
| 9438 | Maybe analysis seeks the 'nominal essence', and metaphysics seeks the 'real essence' [Locke, by Mumford] |
| Full Idea: Locke's distinction would make the 'nominal essence' the target for conceptual analysis and the 'real essence' the target for substantive metaphysics. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by Stephen Mumford - Laws in Nature 08.2 |
| 21461 | I tried to be unsystematic and piecemeal, but failed; my papers presuppose my other views [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I should have like to be a piecemeal, unsystematic philosopher, offering independent proposals on a variety of topics. It was not be. I succumbed too often to the temptation to presuppose my views on one topic when writing on another. | |
| From: David Lewis (Introduction to Philosophical Papers I [1983], p.1) | |
| A reaction: He particularly mentions his possible worlds realism as a doctrine which coloured all his other work. A charming insight into the mind of a systematic thinker (called by someone 'the most systematic metaphysician since Leibniz'). |
| 7653 | I am just an under-labourer, clearing the ground in preparation for knowledge [Locke] |
| Full Idea: 'Tis ambition enough to be employed as an under-labourer in clearing ground a little, and removing some of the rubbish that lies in the way to knowledge. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], Epistle) | |
| A reaction: A famous statement of the new humility of empirical philosophy, which defers to science as the great advancer of knowledge. Personally I view scientists as under-labourers, who discover the physical facts which are needed for wisdom. |
| 16288 | Analysis reduces primitives and makes understanding explicit (without adding new knowledge) [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The object of analysis is to reduce our burden of primitive notions, and to make tacit understanding explicit - not to bootstrap ourselves into understanding what we didn't understand at all beforehand. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 3.2) | |
| A reaction: I am particularly keen on the idea of 'making tacit understanding explicit'. I connect this with faith in intuition, and with the coherence view of justification. |
| 15545 | Armstrong's analysis seeks truthmakers rather than definitions [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I suggest that Armstrong has an unfamiliar notion of analysis, as not primarily a quest for definitions, but as a quest for truth-makers. | |
| From: David Lewis (Armstrong on combinatorial possibility [1992], 'The demand') | |
| A reaction: This is not a dichotomy, I think, but a shift of emphasis. A definition will probably refer to truthmakers; a decent account of truthmakers would approximate a definition. |
| 8605 | In addition to analysis of a concept, one can deny it, or accept it as primitive [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: There are three ways to give an account: 1) 'I deny it' - this earns a failing mark if the fact is really Moorean. 2) 'I analyse it thus'. 3) 'I accept it as primitive'. Not every account is an analysis. | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], '1 Ov Many') | |
| A reaction: I prefer Shoemaker's view (Idea 8559). Personally I think 1) should be employed more often than it is (it is a very misunderstood approach). 3) has been overused in recent years (e.g. by Davidson and McGinn). |
| 12526 | Opposition to reason is mad [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Opposition to reason deserves the name of madness. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.33.04) | |
| A reaction: This may just be a tautology, based on the meaning of the word 'madness', but it sounds more like a clarion call for the Englightenment. |
| 15457 | Interdefinition is useless by itself, but if we grasp one separately, we have them both [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: All circles of interdefinition are useless by themselves. But if we reach one of the interdefined pair, then we have them both. | |
| From: David Lewis (Defining 'Intrinsic' (with Rae Langton) [1998], IV) |
| 15527 | Defining terms either enables elimination, or shows that they don't require elimination [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: To define theoretical terms might be to show how to do without them, but it is better to say that it shows there is no good reason to want to do without them. | |
| From: David Lewis (How to Define Theoretical Terms [1970], Intro) |
| 12538 | Genus is a partial conception of species, and species a partial idea of individuals [Locke] |
| Full Idea: In this whole business of genera and species, the genus, or more comprehensive, but a partial conception of what is in the species, and the species but a partial idea of what is to be found in each individual. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.32) | |
| A reaction: This is my feeling on the subject, that any definition that stops short of the individual, whence all categorisation flows, is inadequate. |
| 16797 | Maybe Locke described the real essence of a person [Locke, by Pasnau] |
| Full Idea: Locke may have gone a long way towards describing the real essence of a person. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.09) by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 30.5 | |
| A reaction: Locke resisted the idea that we could know real essences, but this idea makes the point that if you give a good definition of something you can hardly fail to be invoking its essence. |
| 3993 | Arguments are nearly always open to challenge, but they help to explain a position rather than force people to believe [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Philosophical arguments are never incontrovertible - well, hardly ever. Their purpose is to help expound a position, not to coerce agreement. | |
| From: David Lewis (Lewis: reduction of mind (on himself) [1994], p.419) | |
| A reaction: A bit over-cautious, perhaps. Most philosophers are converted to a position when they hear a single key argument, though it is probably 'tipping the balance' of previous discussions. |
| 12573 | Ad Hominem: press a man with the consequences of his own principle [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The Argumentum ad Hominem is to press a man with consequences drawn from his own principles or concessions. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.17.21) | |
| A reaction: This is a rather more plausible account of it than the alternative I have met, that it is just to attack to speaker instead of what they say. This version is at least an attempt to derive a contradiction, rather than mere abuse. |
| 12491 | Asking whether man's will is free is liking asking if sleep is fast or virtue is square [Locke] |
| Full Idea: To ask whether man's will be free is as improper as to ask whether sleep be swift, or virtue square. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.21.14) | |
| A reaction: Beautiful illustrations of category mistakes, long before the actual phrase was coined. |
| 12549 | Nothing is so beautiful to the eye as truth is to the mind [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Nothing is so beautiful to the eye as truth is to the mind. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.03.20) | |
| A reaction: This is historically interesting, if we ask whether anyone in the centuries preceding Locke would ever have written such a remark. A deep historical question is why the value of pure truth went up so sharply in the early Enlightenment. |
| 10845 | To be true a sentence must express a proposition, and not be ambiguous or vague or just expressive [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Sentences or assertions can be derivately called true, if they succeed in expressing determinate propositions. A sentence can be ambiguous or vague or paradoxical or ungrounded or not declarative or a mere expression of feeling. | |
| From: David Lewis (Forget the 'correspondence theory of truth' [2001], p.276) | |
| A reaction: Lewis has, of course, a peculiar notion of what a proposition is - it's a set of possible worlds. I, with my more psychological approach, take a proposition to be a particular sort of brain event. |
| 12558 | Truth only belongs to mental or verbal propositions [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Truth only belongs to propositions: whereof there are two sorts, viz. mental and verbal | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.05.02) | |
| A reaction: I think it is important to retain 'mental' propositions, so that animals are allowed to think correctly or wrongly about things. I don't think Locke gives much thought to the ontological status of propositions. |
| 12522 | It is propositions which are true or false, though it is sometimes said of ideas [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Truth and falsehood belong, in propriety of speech, only to propositions; yet ideas are oftentimes termed 'true' or 'false ...though I think there is still some secret or tacit proposition. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.32.01) | |
| A reaction: It is not quite clear, I think, what Locke means by 'proposition'. If it means sentences, then there are lots of problem cases like 'I am ill' (who is speaking?). I demand a theory of truth that allows animals to think truths. See Idea 12523. |
| 12523 | If they refer to real substances, 'man' is a true idea and 'centaur' a false one [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The two ideas, of a man and a centaur, supposed to be the ideas of real substances, are the one true and the other false. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.32.05) | |
| A reaction: Locke says (Idea 12522) that there is probably a proposition hidden behind this. We might say that 'man' has a reference and 'centaur' does not (strictly). Is successful reference a species of truth? 'Pick out the llama' - child points - 'that's right!' |
| 9651 | Verisimilitude might be explained as being close to the possible world where the truth is exact [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: We might explain the closeness to the truth (or 'verisimilitude') in terms of closeness of possible worlds. A theory is close to the truth to the extent that our world resembles some world where that theory is exactly true. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.3) | |
| A reaction: [Lewis cites Risto Hilpinen for this thought] I am always puzzled why Lewis and co. talk of whole worlds in their accounts. If I am close to the truth about cooking a good omelette, what has the rest of the world got to do with it? |
| 15557 | Verisimilitude has proved hard to analyse, and seems to have several components [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The analysis of verisimilitude has been much debated. Some plausible analyses have failed disastrously, others conflict with one another. One conclusion is that verisimilitude seems to consist of several distinguishable virtues. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causal Explanation [1986], V n7) | |
| A reaction: Presumably if it is complex, you can approach truth in one respect while receding from it in another. It seems clear enough if you are calculating pi by some iterative process. |
| 10847 | Truthmakers are about existential grounding, not about truth [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Instances of the truthmaker principle are equivalent to biconditionals not about truth but about the existential grounding of all manner of other things; the flying pigs, or what-have-you. | |
| From: David Lewis (Forget the 'correspondence theory of truth' [2001]) | |
| A reaction: The question then is what the difference is between 'existential grounding' and 'truth'. There wouldn't seem to be any difference at all if the proposition in question was a simple existential claim. |
| 15546 | Predications aren't true because of what exists, but of how it exists [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Predications seem, for the most part, to be true not because of whether things are, but because of how things are. | |
| From: David Lewis (Armstrong on combinatorial possibility [1992], 'The demand') | |
| A reaction: This simple point shows that you get into a tangle if you insist that truthmakers just consist of what exists. Lewis says Armstrong offers states of affairs as truthmakers for predications. |
| 15548 | Say 'truth is supervenient on being', but construe 'being' broadly [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I want to say that 'truth is supervenient on being', but as an Ostrich about universals I want to construe 'being' broadly. | |
| From: David Lewis (Armstrong on combinatorial possibility [1992], 'Truth') | |
| A reaction: [His slogan is borrowed from Bigelow 1988:132-,158-9] This seems much more promising that the more precise and restricted notion of truthmakers, as resting on the existence of particular things. Presentism is the big test case. |
| 15549 | If it were true that nothing at all existed, would that have a truthmaker? [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: If there was absolutely nothing at all, then it would have been true that there was nothing. Would there have been a truthmaker for this truth? | |
| From: David Lewis (A world of truthmakers? [1998], p.220) | |
| A reaction: This is a problem for Lewis's own claim that 'truth supervenes on being', as well as the more restricted truthmakers invoked by Armstrong. |
| 14399 | Presentism says only the present exists, so there is nothing for tensed truths to supervene on [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Presentism says that although there is nothing outside the present, yet there are past-tensed and future-tensed truths that do not supervene on the present, and hence do not supervene on being. | |
| From: David Lewis (Armstrong on combinatorial possibility [1992], p.207) | |
| A reaction: Since I rather like both presentism and truth supervening on being, this observation comes as rather a devastating blow. I thought philosophy would be quite easy, but it's turning out to be rather tricky. Could tensed truths supervene on the present? |
| 10846 | Truthmaker is correspondence, but without the requirement to be one-to-one [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The truthmaker principle seems to be a version of the correspondence theory of truth, but differs mostly in denying that the correspondence of truths to facts must be one-to-one. | |
| From: David Lewis (Forget the 'correspondence theory of truth' [2001], p.277) | |
| A reaction: In other words, several different sentences might have exactly the same truthmaker. |
| 8084 | Syllogisms are verbal fencing, not discovery [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Syllogisms are useless for discovery, and serve only for verbal fencing. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]), quoted by Keith Devlin - Goodbye Descartes Ch.3 | |
| A reaction: This illustrates the low status of logic, and the new high status of experimental science, in Locke's time. Locke's seems to miss the point that you can infer new discoveries from old ones. |
| 12572 | Many people can reason well, yet can't make a syllogism [Locke] |
| Full Idea: There are many men that reason exceeding clear and rightly, who know not how to make a syllogism | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.17.04) | |
| A reaction: On the one hand this is just Locke's scepticism about the whole business of Aristotelian logic, but on the other hand it may be a perspicuous observation that logical thought extends far beyond what was catalogued by Aristotle. |
| 16456 | For modality Lewis rejected boxes and diamonds, preferring worlds, and an index for the actual one [Lewis, by Stalnaker] |
| Full Idea: Lewis was suspicious of boxes and diamonds as regimenting ordinary modal thought, …preferring a first-order extensional theory including possible worlds in its domain and an indexical singular term for the actual world. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Anselm and Actuality [1970]) by Robert C. Stalnaker - Mere Possibilities 3.8 |
| 18395 | Sets are mereological sums of the singletons of their members [Lewis, by Armstrong] |
| Full Idea: Lewis pointed out that many-membered classes are nothing more than the mereological wholes of the classes formed by taking the singleton of each member. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991]) by David M. Armstrong - Truth and Truthmakers 09.4 | |
| A reaction: You can't combine members to make the class, because the whole and the parts are of different type, but here the parts and whole are both sets, so they combine like waterdrops. |
| 15496 | We can build set theory on singletons: classes are then fusions of subclasses, membership is the singleton [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The notion of a singleton, or unit set, can serve as the distinctive primitive of set theory. The rest is mereology: a class is the fusion of its singleton subclasses, something is a member of a class iff its singleton is part of that class. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], Pref) | |
| A reaction: This is a gloriously bold proposal which I immediately like, because it cuts out the baffling empty set (which many people think 'exists'!), and gets mathematics back to being about the real world of entities (as the Greeks thought). |
| 10807 | Mathematics reduces to set theory, which reduces, with some mereology, to the singleton function [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: It is generally accepted that mathematics reduces to set theory, and I argue that set theory in turn reduces, with some aid of mereology, to the theory of the singleton function. | |
| From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.03) |
| 15500 | Classes divide into subclasses in many ways, but into members in only one way [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A class divides exhaustively into subclasses in many different ways; whereas a class divides exhaustively into members in only one way. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 1.2) |
| 15499 | A subclass of a subclass is itself a subclass; a member of a member is not in general a member [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Just as a part of a part is itself a part, so a subclass of a subclass is itself a subclass; whereas a member of a member is not in general a member. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 1.2) | |
| A reaction: Lewis is showing the mereological character of sets, but this is a key distinction in basic set theory. When the members of members are themselves members, the set is said to be 'transitive'. |
| 15503 | We needn't accept this speck of nothingness, this black hole in the fabric of Reality! [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Must we accept the null set as a most extraordinary individual, a little speck of sheer nothingness, a sort of black hole in the fabric of Reality itself? Not really. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 1.4) | |
| A reaction: We can only dream of reaching the level of confidence that Lewis reached, to make such beautiful fun of a highly counterintuitive idea that is rooted in the modern techniques of philosophy. |
| 15498 | We can accept the null set, but there is no null class of anything [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: There is no such class as the null class. I don't mind calling some memberless thing - some individual - the null 'set'. But that doesn't make it a memberless class. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 1.2) | |
| A reaction: The point is that set theory is a formal system which can do what it likes, but classes are classes 'of' things. Everyone assumes that sets are classes, reserving 'proper classes' for the tricky cases up at the far end. |
| 15502 | There are four main reasons for asserting that there is an empty set [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The null set is a denotation of last resort for class-terms that fail to denote classes, an intersection of x and y where they have no members in common, the class of all self-members, and the real numbers such that x^2+1=0. This is all mere convenience. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 1.4) | |
| A reaction: A helpful catalogue of main motivations for the existence of the null set in set theory. Lewis aims to undermine these reasons, and dispense with the wretched thing. |
| 10809 | We can accept the null set, but not a null class, a class lacking members [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: In my usage of 'class', there is no such things as the null class. I don't mind calling some memberless thing - some individual - the null set. But that doesn't make it a memberless class. Rather, that makes it a 'set' that is not a class. | |
| From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.05) | |
| A reaction: Lewis calls this usage 'idiosyncratic', but it strikes me as excellent. Set theorists can have their vital null class, and sensible people can be left to say, with Lewis, that classes of things must have members. |
| 10811 | The null set plays the role of last resort, for class abstracts and for existence [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The null set serves two useful purposes. It is a denotation of last resort for class abstracts that denote no nonempty class. And it is an individual of last resort: we can count on its existence, and fearlessly build the hierarchy of sets from it. | |
| From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.09) | |
| A reaction: This passage assuages my major reservation about the existence of the null set, but at the expense of confirming that it must be taken as an entirely fictional entity. |
| 10812 | The null set is not a little speck of sheer nothingness, a black hole in Reality [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Should we accept the null set as a most extraordinary individual, a little speck of sheer nothingness, a sort of black hole in the fabric of Reality itself? Not that either, I think. | |
| From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.09) | |
| A reaction: Correct! |
| 15506 | If we don't understand the singleton, then we don't understand classes [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Our utter ignorance about the nature of the singletons amounts to sheer ignorance about the nature of classes generally. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 2.1) |
| 15497 | We can replace the membership relation with the member-singleton relation (plus mereology) [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Given the theory of part and whole, the member-singleton relation may replace membership generally as the primitive notion of set theory. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], Pref) | |
| A reaction: An obvious question is to ask what the member-singleton relation is if it isn't membership. |
| 15511 | If singleton membership is external, why is an object a member of one rather than another? [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Suppose the relation of member to singleton is external. Why must Possum be a member of one singleton rather than another? Why isn't it contingent which singleton is his? | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 2.2) | |
| A reaction: He cites Van Inwagen for raising this question, and answers it in terms of counterparts. So is the relation internal or external? I think of sets as pairs of curly brackets, not existing entities, so the question doesn't bother me. |
| 15513 | Maybe singletons have a structure, of a thing and a lasso? [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Maybe the singleton of something x is not an atom, but consists of x plus a lasso. That gives a singleton an internal structure. ...But what do we know of the nature of the lasso, or how it fits? We are no better off. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 2.5) | |
| A reaction: [second bit on p.45] |
| 10813 | What on earth is the relationship between a singleton and an element? [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A new student of set theory has just one thing, the element, and he has another single thing, the singleton, and not the slightest guidance about what one thing has to do with the other. | |
| From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.12) |
| 10814 | Are all singletons exact intrinsic duplicates? [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Are all singletons exact intrinsic duplicates? | |
| From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.13) |
| 15507 | Set theory has some unofficial axioms, generalisations about how to understand it [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Set theory has its unofficial axioms, traditional remarks about the nature of classes. They are never argued, but are passed heedlessly from one author to another. One of these says that the classes are nowhere: they are outside space and time. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 2.1) | |
| A reaction: Why don't the people who write formal books on set theory ever say things like this? |
| 10191 | Set theory reduces to a mereological theory with singletons as the only atoms [Lewis, by MacBride] |
| Full Idea: Lewis has shown that set theory may be reduced to a mereological theory in which singletons are the only atoms. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991]) by Fraser MacBride - Review of Chihara's 'Structural Acc of Maths' p.80 | |
| A reaction: Presumably the axiom of extensionality, that a set is no more than its members, translates into unrestricted composition, that any parts will make an object. Difficult territory, but I suspect that this is of great importance in metaphysics. |
| 15508 | If singletons are where their members are, then so are all sets [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: If every singleton was where its member was, then, in general, classes would be where there members were. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 2.1) | |
| A reaction: There seems to be a big dislocation of understanding of the nature of sets, between 'pure' set theory, and set theory with ur-elements. I take the pure to be just an 'abstraction' from the more located one. The empty set has a puzzling location. |
| 15514 | A huge part of Reality is only accepted as existing if you have accepted set theory [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The preponderant part of Reality must consist of unfamiliar, unobserved things, whose existence would have gone unsuspected but for our acceptance of set theory. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 2.6) | |
| A reaction: He is referring to the enormous sets at the far end of set theory, of a size that had never been hitherto conceived. Excellent. Daft to believe in something entirely because you have accepted set theory, with no other basis. |
| 15523 | Set theory isn't innocent; it generates infinities from a single thing; but mathematics needs it [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Set theory is not innocent. Its trouble is that when we have one thing, then somehow we have another wholly distinct thing, the singleton. And another, and another....ad infinitum. But that's the price for mathematical power. Pay it. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 3.6) |
| 10806 | Megethology is the result of adding plural quantification to mereology [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Megethology is the result of adding plural quantification, as advocated by George Boolos, to the language of mereology. | |
| From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.03) |
| 10055 | Mathematical proofs work, irrespective of whether the objects exist [Locke] |
| Full Idea: All the demonstrations of mathematicians are the same, whether there be any square or circle existing in the world or no. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.04.08) | |
| A reaction: Musgrave gives this as an early indication of the if-thenist view of mathematics. |
| 10816 | We can use mereology to simulate quantification over relations [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: We can simulate quantification over relations using megethology. Roughly, a quantifier over relations is a plural quantifier over things that encode ordered pairs by mereological means. | |
| From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.18) | |
| A reaction: [He credits this idea to Burgess and Haven] The point is to avoid second-order logic, which quantifies over relations as ordered n-tuple sets. |
| 15533 | We can quantify over fictions by quantifying for real over their names [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Substitutionalists simulate quantification over fictional characters by quantifying for real over fictional names. | |
| From: David Lewis (Noneism or Allism? [1990], p.159) | |
| A reaction: I would say that a fiction is a file of conceptual information, identified by a label. The label brings baggage with it, and there is no existence in the label. |
| 15731 | Quantification sometimes commits to 'sets', but sometimes just to pluralities (or 'classes') [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I consider some apparent quantification over sets or classes of whatnots to carry genuine ontological commitment to 'sets' of them, but sometimes it is innocent plural quantification committed only to whatnots, for which I use 'class'. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5 n37) | |
| A reaction: How do you tell whether you are committed to a set or not? Can I claim an innocent plurality each time, while you accuse me of a guilty set? Can I firmly commit to a set, to be told that I can never manage more than a plurality? |
| 15525 | Plural quantification lacks a complete axiom system [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: There is an irremediable lack of a complete axiom system for plural quantification. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 4.7) |
| 15518 | I like plural quantification, but am not convinced of its connection with second-order logic [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I agree fully with Boolos on substantive questions about plural quantification, though I would make less than he does of the connection with second-order logic. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 3.2 n2) | |
| A reaction: Deep matters, but my inclination is to agree with Lewis, as I have never been able to see why talk of plural quantification led straight on to second-order logic. A plural is just some objects, not some higher-order entity. |
| 15534 | We could quantify over impossible objects - as bundles of properties [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: We can quantify over Meinongian objects by quantifying for real over property bundles (such as the bundle of roundness and squareness). | |
| From: David Lewis (Noneism or Allism? [1990], p.159) |
| 14212 | A consistent theory just needs one model; isomorphic versions will do too, and large domains provide those [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A consistent theory is, by definition, one satisfied by some model; an isomorphic image of a model satisfies the same theories as the original model; to provide the making of an isomorphic image of any given model, a domain need only be large enough. | |
| From: David Lewis (Putnam's Paradox [1984], 'Why Model') | |
| A reaction: This is laying out the ground for Putnam's model theory argument in favour of anti-realism. If you are chasing the one true model of reality, then formal model theory doesn't seem to offer much encouragement. |
| 12488 | The idea of 'one' is the simplest, most obvious and most widespread idea [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Among all the ideas we have, as there is none suggested to the mind by more ways, so there is none more simple than that of unity, or one; ..every idea in our understanding, every thought of our minds brings this idea along with it. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.16.01) | |
| A reaction: What does Locke mean by 'suggested' to the mind? I take it that this phenomenon of psychology (or of reality, if you like) is the foundation of mathematics, making one clearly prior to zero. |
| 12489 | If there were real infinities, you could add two together, which is ridiculous [Locke] |
| Full Idea: If a man had a positive idea of infinite, either duration or space, he could add two infinities together; nay, make one Infinite infinity bigger than another, absurdities too gross to be confuted. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.17.20) | |
| A reaction: A beautifully heartfelt objection to everything Cantor stood for, two hundred years before Cantor got round to it. |
| 10808 | Mathematics is generalisations about singleton functions [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: We can take the theory of singleton functions, and hence set theory, and hence mathematics, to consist of generalisations about all singleton functions. | |
| From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.03) | |
| A reaction: At first glance this sounds like a fancy version of the somewhat discredited Greek idea that mathematics is built on the concept of a 'unit'. |
| 15524 | Zermelo's model of arithmetic is distinctive because it rests on a primitive of set theory [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: What sets Zermelo's modelling of arithmetic apart from von Neumann's and all the rest is that he identifies the primitive of arithmetic with an appropriately primitive notion of set theory. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 4.6) | |
| A reaction: Zermelo's model is just endlessly nested empty sets, which is a very simple structure. I gather that connoisseurs seem to prefer von Neumann's model (where each number contains its predecessor number). |
| 15517 | Giving up classes means giving up successful mathematics because of dubious philosophy [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Renouncing classes means rejecting mathematics. That will not do. Mathematics is an established, going concern. Philosophy is as shaky as can be. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 2.8) | |
| A reaction: This culminates in his famous 'Who's going to tell the mathematicians? Not me!'. He has just given four examples of mathematics that seems to entirely depend on classes. This idea sounds like G.E. Moore's common sense against scepticism. |
| 15515 | To be a structuralist, you quantify over relations [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: To be a structuralist, you quantify over relations. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 2.6) |
| 10815 | We don't need 'abstract structures' to have structural truths about successor functions [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: We needn't believe in 'abstract structures' to have general structural truths about all successor functions. | |
| From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.16) |
| 12556 | Mathematics is just about ideas, so whether circles exist is irrelevant [Locke] |
| Full Idea: All the discourses of mathematicians concerning conic sections etc. concern not the existence of any of those figures, but their demonstrations, which depend on their ideas, are the same, whether there be any square or circle existing in the world or no. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.04.08) | |
| A reaction: If the full-blown platonic circle really existed, we would have the epistemic problem not only of getting in causal contact with it, but also of knowing whether our idea of it was the correct idea. We can't know that, so we just work with our idea. |
| 7782 | Every simple idea we ever have brings the idea of unity along with it [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Amongst all the ideas we have… there is none more simple, than that of unity, or one… every idea in our understanding, every thought in our minds, brings this idea along with it. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.16.01) | |
| A reaction: If every idea we think of necessarily brings another idea along with it, that makes you suspect that the accompanying idea is innate. If I derive the concept of the sun from experience, do I also derive the idea that my concept is a unity? |
| 15532 | 'Allists' embrace the existence of all controversial entities; 'noneists' reject all but the obvious ones [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: An expansive friend of the controversial entities who says they all exist may be called an 'allist'; a tough desert-dweller who says that none of them exist may be called a 'noneist'. | |
| From: David Lewis (Noneism or Allism? [1990], p.152) | |
| A reaction: Lewis gives examples of the obvious and the controversial entities. Lewis implies that he himself is in between. The word 'desert' is a reference to Quine. |
| 15535 | We can't accept a use of 'existence' that says only some of the things there are actually exist [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: If 'existence' is understood so that it can be a substantive thesis that only some of the things there are exist, we will have none of it. | |
| From: David Lewis (Noneism or Allism? [1990], p.163) | |
| A reaction: Lewis is a strong advocate, following Quine, of the univocal sense of the word 'exist', and I agree with them. |
| 15789 | Lewis's distinction of 'existing' from 'being actual' is Meinong's between 'existing' and 'subsisting' [Lycan on Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I suggest that Lewis's view in fact is just Meinong's view. ...Meinong distinguishes between 'existing' and merely 'subsisting', Lewis between 'being actual' and merely 'existing'. | |
| From: comment on David Lewis (Possible Worlds [1973]) by William Lycan - The Trouble with Possible Worlds 06 | |
| A reaction: Lewis attempts to make actuality purely 'indexical' in character, like distinguishing the world 'here' from the world 'elsewhere', but Lycan seems right that he is committed to more than that. |
| 10470 | There are only two kinds: sets, and possibilia (actual and possible particulars) [Lewis, by Oliver] |
| Full Idea: Lewis's multi-purpose ontology seems to have only two kinds: sets and possibilia (actual and possible particulars). | |
| From: report of David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986]) by Alex Oliver - The Metaphysics of Properties 3 | |
| A reaction: This is awfully like the ontology of his teacher Quine, but with the wicked addition of modal properties. It is no wonder that Lewis was a bit vague about the concrete boundary, as both of his kinds seem to be abstract. His Achilles' Heel? |
| 15520 | Existence doesn't come in degrees; once asserted, it can't then be qualified [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Existence cannot be a matter of degree. If you say there is something that exists to a diminished degree, once you've said 'there is' your game is up. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 3.5) | |
| A reaction: You might have thought that this was so obvious as to be not worth saying, but as far as I can see it is a minority view in contemporary philosophy. It was Quine's view, and it is mine. |
| 14401 | Every proposition is entirely about being [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Every proposition, no matter what subject matter it may have, is entirely about being. | |
| From: David Lewis (Things qua Truthmakers [2003], p.26), quoted by Trenton Merricks - Truth and Ontology 4.VI | |
| A reaction: Since Lewis's propositions are sets of possible worlds, I presume this claim is made because proposition relates to all of the possible worlds, which therefore presumably embody Being. |
| 8910 | General and universal are not real entities, but useful inventions of the mind, concerning words or ideas [Locke] |
| Full Idea: It is plain that general and universal belong not to the real existence of things; but are the inventions and creatures of the understanding, made by it for its own use, and concern only signs, whether words or ideas. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.03.11) | |
| A reaction: Frege and Geach viciously attacked this view, and it seems to be discredited, but I think it is time for a revival, given that the alternative view seems to lead to platonism. I take the first step in mental abstractionism to be pre-verbal. |
| 12554 | Existences can only be known by experience [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The existence of things is to be known only from experience. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.03.31) | |
| A reaction: This is the clearest statement you could wish for of the standard empiricist view of such things. Locke might take a broad view of experience, since he unshakably infers the existence of God from merely thinking about being. |
| 15540 | You can't deny temporary intrinsic properties by saying the properties are relations (to times) [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: To say that properties are really relations to times is to treat temporary intrinsics (such as my changing shape) as a matter of relations, but then 'intrinsic properties' would not deserve the name, and it is untenable if it denies temporary intrinsics. | |
| From: David Lewis (Rearrangement of Particles [1988], 1) | |
| A reaction: [I have compressed a paragraph; he refers to his 1986:204] If a property is meant to be a 'relation to a time', I am not sure what the relata are meant to be, and I agree with Lewis that this seems a long way from properties. |
| 15561 | The events that suit semantics may not be the events that suit causation [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: There is no guarantee that events made for semantics are the same as events that are causes and effects. | |
| From: David Lewis (Events [1986], I) | |
| A reaction: This little cri de couer could be a motto for a huge amount of analytic philosophy, which (for some odd reason) thought that mathematics, logic, set theory and formal semantics were good tools for explaining nature. |
| 15565 | Events have inbuilt essences, as necessary conditions for their occurrence [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Events have their essences built in, in the form of necessary conditions for their occurrence. | |
| From: David Lewis (Events [1986], III) | |
| A reaction: Revealing. He thinks the essence of an event is something which precedes the event. I take it as obvious that if an event has an essence, it will be some features of the event that occur in it and during it. They need to be intrinsic. |
| 15566 | Events are classes, and so there is a mereology of their parts [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: If events are classes, as I propose, then they have a mereology in the way that all classes do: the parts of a class are its subclasses. | |
| From: David Lewis (Events [1986], V) | |
| A reaction: Lewis says events are properties, which he regards as classes. It is not clear that events are strictly mereological. Could one happening be two events? Is WWII a simple sum of its parts? [see p.260] |
| 15567 | Some events involve no change; they must, because causal histories involve unchanges [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Not all events involve change. We cannot afford to count the unchanges as nonevents, for the unchanges may be needed to complete causal histories. | |
| From: David Lewis (Events [1986], VI) | |
| A reaction: You end up calling non-changes 'events' if you commit to a simplistic theory that all causal histories consist of events. Why not allow conditions as well as events? Lewis concedes that he may be abusing language. |
| 15564 | An event is a property of a unique space-time region [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I propose to identify an event with a property, or in other words with a class, a unique spatio-temporal region corresponding to where that event occurs. | |
| From: David Lewis (Events [1986], II) | |
| A reaction: [I've run together two separate bits, on p.244 and 245] Lewis cites Montague's similar view, that events are properties of times. |
| 8607 | Supervenience is reduction without existence denials, ontological priorities, or translatability [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Supervenience is a stripped down form of reductionism, unencumbered by dubious denials of existence, claims of ontological priority, or claims of translatability. | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Dup,Sup,Div') | |
| A reaction: Interesting. It implies that the honest reductionist (i.e. me) should begin by asserting supervience, and only at a second stage go on to deny a bit of existence, loudly affirm priorities, and offer translations. Honest toil. |
| 3990 | The whole truth supervenes on the physical truth [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The whole truth supervenes on the physical truth. | |
| From: David Lewis (Lewis: reduction of mind (on himself) [1994], p.412) | |
| A reaction: This seems to me the central truth about brains, and we should not be lured into abandoning it. We should not, however, exclude the possibility that there is a non-physical reality. |
| 9650 | Supervenience concerns whether things could differ, so it is a modal notion [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The idea of supervenience is when there could be no difference of one sort without difference of another sort. ..Clearly this 'could' indicates modality, and without modality we have nothing of interest. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.2) | |
| A reaction: This might explain why philosophers are going to be more at home with the concept than neuroscientists would be. |
| 3991 | Where pixels make up a picture, supervenience is reduction [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: In the case of millions of pixels making up a picture on a computer screen, the supervenience is reduction. | |
| From: David Lewis (Lewis: reduction of mind (on himself) [1994], p.414) | |
| A reaction: Since 'supervenience' seems a suspect relationship about which no one is clear, this is a point very much worth making. |
| 8606 | A supervenience thesis is a denial of independent variation [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A supervenience thesis is a denial of independent variation. | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Dup,Sup,Div') | |
| A reaction: Not everyone agrees on this. This says if either A or B change, the change is reflected in the other one. But the other view is of one-way dependence. A only changes if B changes, but B can also make changes that don't affect A. |
| 16210 | Humean supervenience says the world is just a vast mosaic of qualities in space-time [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Humean supervenience says the world is a vast mosaic of local matters of particular fact. We have a geometry of external relations of spatio-temporal distance between points, and local qualities at points. …In short: we have an arrangement of qualities. | |
| From: David Lewis (Introduction to Philosophical Papers II [1986], p.ix-x) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] This is the key fundamental tenet of David Lewis's philosophy. He names it after Hume because it contains no necessary connections. It is 'supervenient' because all worldly truths reduce to and depend on the mosaic. His thesis is contingent. |
| 12502 | Comparisons boil down to simple elements of sensation or reflection [Locke] |
| Full Idea: All comparisons terminate in, and are concerned about those simple ideas, either of sensation or reflection; which I think to be the whole material of all our knowledge. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.25.09) | |
| A reaction: This seems to be an ancestor of logical atomism. Hume is inclined to make his 'atoms' strictly empirical (as 'impressions'), but Locke also allows simples of reflection, which may be a priori conceptual atoms. |
| 15501 | We have no idea of a third sort of thing, that isn't an individual, a class, or their mixture [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: As yet we have no idea of any third sort of thing that is neither individual nor class nor mixture of the two. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 1.2) | |
| A reaction: You can see that Lewis was a pupil of Quine. I quote this to show how little impression 'stuff' makes on the modern radar. His defence is that stuff may not be a 'thing', but then he seems to think that 'things' exhaust reality (top p.8 and 9). |
| 15504 | Atomless gunk is an individual whose parts all have further proper parts [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A blob can represent atomless gunk: an individual whose parts all have further proper parts. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 1.8) | |
| A reaction: This is not the same as 'stuff', since gunk is a precise fusion of all those parts, whereas there is no such precision about stuff. Stuff is neutral as to whether it has atoms, or is endlessly divisible. My love of stuff grows. Laycock is a hero. |
| 12568 | God assures me of the existence of external things [Locke] |
| Full Idea: God has given me assurance enough of the existence of things without me. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.11.03) | |
| A reaction: Is Locke committing a similar crime to Descartes? Descartes was circular about what is 'clear and distinct'. Locke uses inner existence to prove God, who is then rich enough at act as guarantor for what is external. Not circular. Over-reaching. |
| 14213 | Anti-realists see the world as imaginary, or lacking joints, or beyond reference, or beyond truth [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Anti-realists say the only world is imaginary, or only has the parts or classes or relations we divide it into, or doubt that reference to the world is possible, or doubt that our interpretations can achieve truth. | |
| From: David Lewis (Putnam's Paradox [1984], 'Why Anti-R') | |
| A reaction: [compression of a paragraph on anti-realism] Lewis is a thoroughgoing realist. A nice example of the rhetorical device of ridiculing an opponent by suggesting that they don't even know what they themselves believe. |
| 8580 | Materialism is (roughly) that two worlds cannot differ without differing physically [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Final definition of 'Materialism': Among worlds where no natural properties alien to our world are instantiated, no two differ without differing physically; and two such worlds that are exactly alike physically are duplicates. | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Min Mat') | |
| A reaction: This would presumably allow for an anomalous monist/property dualist view of mind, but not full dualism. But if there are no psychophysical laws, what stops the mental changing while the physical remains the same? |
| 8909 | Abstractions may well be verbal fictions, in which we ignore some features of an object [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The inevitable hypothesis is that abstractions are verbal fictions. We say we are speaking about abstractions when we are speaking abstractly about the original thing. We are ignoring some features, not introducing a new thing lacking those features. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.7) | |
| A reaction: Thus Lewis ends up pretty close to Locke and the traditional view. This makes abstraction not a feat of platonic perception, in which magical non-material objects are spotted, but a feat of counterfactual imagination. |
| 15543 | How do things combine to make states of affairs? Constituents can repeat, and fail to combine [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: To me it is mysterious how a state of affairs is made out of its particular and universal constituents. Different states of affairs may have the very same constituents, and the existence of constituents by no means entails the existence of the states. | |
| From: David Lewis (Armstrong on combinatorial possibility [1992], 'What is there') | |
| A reaction: He is rejecting the structure of states of affairs as wholes made of parts. But then mereology was never going to explain the structure of the world. |
| 12516 | Obscure simple ideas result from poor senses, brief impressions, or poor memory [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The cause of obscurity in simple ideas seems to be either dull organs, or very slight and transient impressions made by the objects, or else a weakness in memory, not able to retain them as received. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.29.03) | |
| A reaction: This seems to give some support to the epistemological view of vagueness, with the implication that if our senses and memory were perfect, then our ideas would have perfect clarity. |
| 12517 | Ideas are uncertain when they are unnamed, because too close to other ideas [Locke] |
| Full Idea: A source of confusion is when any complex idea is made up of too small a number of simple ideas, and such only as are common to other things, whereby the differences that make it deserve a different name are left out. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.29.07) | |
| A reaction: In other words, a word covers a variety of entities, and so it cannot possibly pinpoint any of them exactly. Cats all differ, but so do small and large circles. |
| 16458 | Semantic vagueness involves alternative and equal precisifications of the language [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: If vagueness is semantic indeterminacy, then wherever we have vague statements, we have several alternative precisifications of the vague language involved, all with equal claims of being 'intended'. | |
| From: David Lewis (Vague Identity: Evans misunderstood [1988], p.318) |
| 9057 | Vagueness is semantic indecision: we haven't settled quite what our words are meant to express [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I regard vagueness as semantic indecision: where we speak vaguely, we have not troubled to settle which of some range of precise meanings our words are meant to express. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 4.4 n32) | |
| A reaction: But that seems to leave the problem of how you are going to decide the boundaries of 'heap' or 'bald', if we all agree to become more precise. In law precise boundaries are often drawn a bit arbitrarily, simply because a boundary is needed. |
| 9671 | Whether or not France is hexagonal depends on your standards of precision [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Say that France is hexagonal, and you thereby set the standards of precision low, and you speak the truth; say that France is not hexagonal (preferably on some other occasion) and you set the standards high, and again you speak the truth. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 4.5) | |
| A reaction: This is very persuasive. It fits with my views on justification, which are to do with how high I (or more often 'we') decide to set the standards, thereby defining knowledge for that occasion. Hm. Has Lewis cracked vagueness? [P.S. NO!] |
| 15538 | Semantic indecision explains vagueness (if we have precisifications to be undecided about) [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Semantic indecision will suffice to explain the phenomenon of vagueness. [note] Provided that there exist the many precisifications for us to be undecided between. If you deny this, you will indeed have need of vague objects. | |
| From: David Lewis (Many, but almost one [1993], 'Two solutions') | |
| A reaction: [He mentions Van Inwagen 1990:213-83] There seem to be three solutions to vague objects: that they really are vague, that they are precise but we can't know precisely, or Lewis's view. I like Lewis's view. Do animals have any problem with vagueness? |
| 13435 | We can't categorise things by their real essences, because these are unknown [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Nor indeed can we rank and sort things, and consequently (which is the end of sorting) denominate them by their real essences, because we know them not. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.09) | |
| A reaction: Hence he says we categorise by the nominal essence, which is the ideas we have formed from our experiences of things. If we now have experts who have mastered some real essences, Locke is wrong, if we submit to the expert categories. |
| 12535 | If we discovered real essences, we would still categorise things by the external appearance [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Supposing that the real essences were discoverable, ..yet we could not reasonably think that the ranking of things under general names was regulated by those internal real constitutions, or any thing else but their obvious appearance. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.25) | |
| A reaction: This makes Putnam's water and twater the same! I take it there is no rule here. The authority of science has gradually substitute H2O as the criterion for water, so real essence rules, but it doesn't have to. |
| 13436 | There are no gaps in the continuum of nature, and everything has something closely resembling it [Locke] |
| Full Idea: In the visible corporeal world we see no chasms or gaps. All quite down from us the descent is by easy steps and a continued series of things, that in each remove differ very little from the other. There are fish that have wings, and birds inhabit water. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.12) | |
| A reaction: This is a direct contradiction of Plato's claim that nature has joints (Idea 7953). Locke's claim doesn't sound very plausible for many cases, and the examples he gives are far from conclusive. |
| 15751 | Surely 'slept in by Washington' is a property of some bed? [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: That the most noteworthy property of this bed is that George Washington slept in it - surely this is true on some legitimate conception of properties? | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: Wrong! This example is a nice clear test case. This is an absurd slippery slope. A bed he once looked at? I would have thought this was a relation the bed once entered into, and a relation isn't a property. |
| 8571 | Universals are wholly present in their instances, whereas properties are spread around [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Universals and properties are different because a universal is supposed to be wholly present wherever it is instantiated. A property, by contrast, is spread around. The property of being a donkey is partly present wherever there is a donkey. | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Un and Prop') | |
| A reaction: No mention of tropes. The claim that universals are widespread, and yet must be instantiated, is dealt with by Lewis's commitment to the existence of possible donkeys. |
| 15735 | Properties don't have degree; they are determinate, and things have varying relations to them [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I have made no place for properties that admit of degree, so that things may have more or less of the same property. There are plain properties, and then there are relations to them. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: An interesting question, little discussed. Elsewhere, Lewis ascribes all vagueness to our inadequate predicates, rather than to the world, which I find quite persuasive. |
| 9656 | The 'abundant' properties are just any bizarre property you fancy [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Properties are 'sparse' or 'abundant'. The abundant properties may be as extrinsic, as gruesomely gerrymandered, as miscellaneously disjunctive, as you please. They pay no heed to the qualitative joints, but carve things up every which way. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: This seems to be a logician's idea, which is needed for the notion of a set as pure extension, but it has very little to do with what I understand by the word 'property'. Better to call it a 'categorization'. E.g. filing George W. Bush under 'jackal'. |
| 15737 | To be a 'property' is to suit a theoretical role [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: To deserve the name of 'property' is to be suited to play the right theoretical role. It is wrong to speak of 'the' role associated with the word 'property', as if it were fully and uncontroversially settled. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: Once again I see a chicken-and-egg problem. Surely something has a theoretical role because of its intrinsic character, or its prior definition? How could you formulate a theory if you lacked properties? We don’t meet properties as gaps in theories. |
| 14979 | Being alone doesn't guarantee intrinsic properties; 'being alone' is itself extrinsic [Lewis, by Sider] |
| Full Idea: The property of 'being alone in the world' is an extrinsic property, even though it has had by an object that is alone in the world. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Extrinsic Properties [1983]) by Theodore Sider - Writing the Book of the World 01.2 | |
| A reaction: I always choke on my cornflakes whenever anyone cites a true predicate as if it were a genuine property. This is a counterexample to Idea 14978. Sider offers another more elaborate example from Lewis. |
| 15454 | Extrinsic properties come in degrees, with 'brother' less extrinsic than 'sibling' [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Properties may be more or less intrinsic; being a brother has more of an admixture of intrinsic structure than being a sibling does, yet both are extrinsic. | |
| From: David Lewis (Extrinsic Properties [1983], I) | |
| A reaction: I suppose the point is that a brother is intrinsically male - but then a sibling is intrinsically human. A totally extrinsic relation would be one between entities which shared virtually no categories of existence. |
| 15742 | A disjunctive property can be unnatural, but intrinsic if its disjuncts are intrinsic [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A property can be unnatural by reason of disjunctiveness, as the property of being tripartite-or-liquid-or-cubical is, and it is intrinsic if its disjuncts are. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: This strikes me as being utterly, shockingly and disgracefully wrong. A disjunction can't possibly be a property. Can a person have the property of being 'fat or thin'? A disjunction offers candidates for properties, not the properties themselves. |
| 15397 | If a global intrinsic never varies between possible duplicates, all necessary properties are intrinsic [Cameron on Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Lewis defines a globally intrinsic property as one that never varies between duplicates across possible worlds. This has the immediate problem that any property that is necessarily had, or necessarily lacked, by every thing will be intrinsic. | |
| From: comment on David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], p.61-2) by Ross P. Cameron - Intrinsic and Extrinsic Properties 'Analysis' | |
| A reaction: [He also cites Langton and Lewis 1998] To me this is the sort of tangle you get into when you equate properties with predicates. The problem seems to concern necessary predicates (but those may not be necessary properties). |
| 15398 | Global intrinsic may make necessarily coextensive properties both intrinsic or both extrinsic [Cameron on Lewis] |
| Full Idea: If a globally intrinsic properties are those that never vary between duplicates across possible worlds, then necessarily coextensive properties will either be both intrinsic or both extrinsic. | |
| From: comment on David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], p.61-2) by Ross P. Cameron - Intrinsic and Extrinsic Properties 'Analysis' | |
| A reaction: Presumably this problem would arise if some intrinsic property entailed an extrinsic property (or, less likely, vice versa). These sorts of problems arise when you try to define everything extensionally (even across possible worlds). |
| 15435 | If you think universals are immanent, you must believe them to be sparse, and not every related predicate [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Any theorist of universals as immanent had better hold a sparse theory; it is preposterous on its face that a thing has as many nonspatiotemporal parts as there are different predicates that it falls under, or different classes that it belongs to. | |
| From: David Lewis (Against Structural Universals [1986], 'Why believe') | |
| A reaction: I am firmly committed to sparse universal, and view the idea that properties are just predicates as the sort of nonsense that results from approaching philosophy too linguistically. |
| 15400 | We must avoid circularity between what is intrinsic and what is natural [Lewis, by Cameron] |
| Full Idea: Lewis revised his analysis of duplication because he had assumed that as a matter of necessity perfectly natural properties are intrinsic, and that necessarily how a thing is intrinsically is determined completely by the natural properties it has. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Defining 'Intrinsic' (with Rae Langton) [1998]) by Ross P. Cameron - Intrinsic and Extrinsic Properties 'Analysis' | |
| A reaction: [This compares Lewis 1986:61 with Langton and Lewis 1998] I am keen on both intrinsic and on natural properties, but I have not yet confronted this little problem. Time for a displacement activity, I think.... |
| 15458 | A property is 'intrinsic' iff it can never differ between duplicates [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A property is 'intrinsic' iff it never can differ between duplicates; iff whenever two things (actual or possible) are duplicates, either both of them have the property or both of them lack it. | |
| From: David Lewis (Defining 'Intrinsic' (with Rae Langton) [1998], IV) | |
| A reaction: This leaves me wondering how one could arrive at a precise definition of 'duplicates'. Can it be done without mentioning that they have the same intrinsic properties? |
| 15459 | Ellipsoidal stars seem to have an intrinsic property which depends on other objects [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The property of being an ellipsoidal star would seem offhand to be a basic intrinsic property, but it is incompatible (nomologically) with being an isolated object. | |
| From: David Lewis (Defining 'Intrinsic' (with Rae Langton) [1998], V) | |
| A reaction: Another nice example from Lewis. It makes you wonder whether the intrinsic/extrinsic distinction should go. Modern physics, with its 'entanglements', doesn't seem to suit the distinction. |
| 15741 | All of the natural properties are included among the intrinsic properties [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: It cannot be said that all intrinsic properties are perfectly natural, ...but it can plausibly be said that all perfectly natural properties are intrinsic. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: Idea 15742 give the example he uses to support this claim. I like the concept of 'intrinsic' properties, but cannot currently see any use for the concept of 'natural' ones. |
| 15752 | We might try defining the natural properties by a short list of them [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: We might try defining the natural properties by a short list, of the mass properties, charge properties, quark properties and flavours... | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5 n47) | |
| A reaction: He rejects this because of possible natural properties in other possible worlds. Defining anything by a list seems like cheating. Does John, Paul, George and Ringo 'define' something? |
| 10717 | Natural properties figure in the analysis of similarity in intrinsic respects [Lewis, by Oliver] |
| Full Idea: Lewis argues that there are natural properties, which makes various analyses possible, especially of similarity in intrinsic respects. Naturalness comes in degrees, with perfectly natural properties being the limiting case. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983]) by Alex Oliver - The Metaphysics of Properties 4 | |
| A reaction: This sounds to be the wrong way round. We don't start with similarities and work back to natural properties. We encounter natural properties (through their causal action), and these give rise to the similarities. |
| 16217 | Lewisian natural properties fix reference of predicates, through a principle of charity [Lewis, by Hawley] |
| Full Idea: For Lewis natural properties are important for their role in making language and thought determinate: principles of charity or humanity tell us to attribute natural properties to predicates wherever possible, break underdetermination of their reference. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983]) by Katherine Hawley - How Things Persist 3.8 | |
| A reaction: Lewis always seems to find reasons in semantics or logic for his metaphysics, instead of in the science. Lewis ends up with 'folk' natural properties, instead of accurate ones. |
| 8613 | Objects are demarcated by density and chemistry, and natural properties belong in what is well demarcated [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Where my cat (Bruce) ends, there the density of matter, the relative abundance of chemical elements, abruptly change. Bruce is also a locus of causal chains, which traces back to natural properties. Natural properties belong to well demarcated things. | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Cont of L') | |
| A reaction: This is an amazingly convoluted way to define natural properties in terms of the classes they generate, but it seems obvious to me that the properties are logically prior to the classes. |
| 8585 | Reference partly concerns thought and language, partly eligibility of referent by natural properties [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Reference consists in part of what we do in language or thought when we refer, but in part it consists in eligibility of the referent. And this eligibility to be referred to is a matter of natural properties. | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Cont of L') | |
| A reaction: This is a surprising conclusion for Lewis to reach, having started from properties as any old set members (see Idea 8572). There are references to intentional objects, such as 'there should have been someone on duty'. |
| 8586 | Natural properties tend to belong to well-demarcated things, typically loci of causal chains [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: One thing that makes for naturalness of a property is that it is a property belonging exclusively to well-demarcated things (like my cat Bruce, who is a locus of causal chains). | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Cont of L') | |
| A reaction: Compare Idea 8557. Well-demarcated things may also have gerrymandered properties that are parts of 'arbitrary Boolean compounds' (Lewis). Why not make use of the causal chains to identify the properties? |
| 8589 | For us, a property being natural is just an aspect of its featuring in the contents of our attitudes [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The reason natural properties feature in the contents of our attitudes is that naturalness is part of what it is to feature therein. We aren't built to take a special interest in natural properties, or that we call them natural if they are interesting. | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Cont of L') | |
| A reaction: Evolution never features in Lewis's metaphysics. I would have thought we were very much built to focus on natural properties. This sounds odd, and gives no help in distinguishing natural properties from all our other daft contents. |
| 15460 | All perfectly natural properties are intrinsic [Lewis, by Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Lewis proposed that all perfectly natural properties are intrinsic. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], p.355-7) by David Lewis - Defining 'Intrinsic' (with Rae Langton) IX | |
| A reaction: Depends what you mean by 'natural', 'property' and 'intrinsic'! Presumably there are natural extrinsic facts, in naturally necessary relationships. If all natural properties are powers, they would have to be intrinsic. Extrinsics would be derivative. |
| 15726 | Natural properties fix resemblance and powers, and are picked out by universals [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Perhaps we could call a property 'perfectly' natural if its members are all and only those things that share some one universal, ...where the natural properties would be the ones whose sharing makes for resemblance, and the ones relevant to causal powers. | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Un and Prop') | |
| A reaction: This is Lewis fishing for an account of properties that does a bit better than the mere recourse to set theory (which he intuitively favours) seems to do. He remains neutral about the ontological status of a universal (though he prefers nominalism). |
| 14996 | Natural properties give similarity, joint carving, intrinsicness, specificity, homogeneity... [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Sharing of [perfectly natural properties] makes for qualitative similarity, they carve at the joints, they are intrinsic, they are highly specific, the sets of their instances are ipso facto not highly miscellaneous. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: All this sounds like just what I want, but when I read Lewis he seems to be arriving at these natural properties by the wrong route. Too much Hume, too much extensionalism. |
| 15744 | We can't define natural properties by resemblance, if they are used to explain resemblance [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Shall we say that natural properties are the ones whose instances are united by resemblance? - Not if we are going to say that resemblance is the sharing of natural properties. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: The target of this appears to be the proposal of Quinton. By now I have totally given up on so-called 'natural' properties. Lewis says the circularity (also in Idea 15743) is a reason to treat 'natural' here as primitive (though he rejects that). |
| 15743 | Defining natural properties by means of laws of nature is potentially circular [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Shall we say that natural properties are the ones that figure in laws of nature? - Not if we are going to use naturalness of properties when we draw the line between laws of nature and accidental regularities. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: Personally I wouldn't dream of defining anything by saying that it figured in laws of nature. The laws, if there be such (see Mumford) are built up from more fundamental components, such as (perhaps) properties. |
| 15740 | I don't take 'natural' properties to be fixed by the nature of one possible world [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Some people suppose my natural properties are distinguished by nature, and hence natural in one world and not another. I intend properties to be natural or unnatural simpliciter, not relative to one or another world. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5 n44) | |
| A reaction: This is an important warning for the likes of me. I've have begun to doubt the utility of the term 'natural' property, and this reinforces my view. |
| 16262 | Sparse properties rest either on universals, or on tropes, or on primitive naturalness [Lewis, by Maudlin] |
| Full Idea: Lewis surveys three accounts of sparse properties: a set of objects instantiating a single universal; a set of objects having as parts duplicates of some trope; and a set distinguished by a further unanalyzable, primitive characteristic of naturalness. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], p.60-) by Tim Maudlin - The Metaphysics within Physics | |
| A reaction: The very idea of suggesting that a property is some set of objects strikes me as bizarre. I present you with a table full of objects and say that is the complete set of some property. You then have to study the objects to find out what the property is. |
| 15451 | I assume there could be natural properties that are not instantiated in our world [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: It is possible, I take it, that there might be simple natural properties different from any that instantiated within our world. | |
| From: David Lewis (Against Structural Universals [1986], 'Uninstantiated') | |
| A reaction: Interesting. Fine for Lewis, of course, for whom possibilities seem (to me) to be just logical possibilities. Even a scientific essentialist, though, must allow that different stuff might exist, which might have different intrinsic properties. |
| 7031 | Lewis says properties are sets of actual and possible objects [Lewis, by Heil] |
| Full Idea: David Lewis has produced an important theory of properties as sets of actual and possible objects. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983]) by John Heil - From an Ontological Point of View §12.2 | |
| A reaction: The notion that a property is an 'object' sounds wrong, as it is too passive. It also seems to allow for the possibility of uninstantiated properties existing, where properties are presumably always 'of' something. |
| 8572 | Any class of things is a property, no matter how whimsical or irrelevant [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Any class of things, be it ever so gerrymandered and miscellaneous and indescribable in thought and language, and be it ever so superfluous in characterizing the world, is nevertheless a property. | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Un and Prop') | |
| A reaction: I much prefer, at the very least, the sparse approach of Armstrong, and in fact would vote for Shoemaker's highly physical view. Lewis proceeds after this to try to pick out the properties that really matter. |
| 15464 | The distinction between dispositional and 'categorical' properties leads to confusion [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: To avoid the danger of claiming that dispositions are their own categorical bases, we do better to eschew the alleged distinction between dispositional and 'categorical' properties altogether. | |
| From: David Lewis (Finkish dispositions [1997], II) | |
| A reaction: Since I have been unable to form any intuitive notion of what a 'categorical' property is, I like this, though not necessarily for his reason. |
| 18433 | There are far more properties than any brain could ever encodify [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: There are so many properties that those specifiable in English, or in the brain's language of synaptic interconnections and neural spikes, could only be an infinitesimal minority. | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Un and Prop') | |
| A reaction: Thus there are innumerable properties that must lack predicates. But there are also innumerable predicates that correspond to no real properties. I conclude that properties and predicates have very little in common. Job done. |
| 8604 | We need properties as semantic values for linguistic expressions [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: We need properties, sometimes natural and sometimes not, to provide an adequate supply of semantic values for linguistic expressions. | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Un and Prop') | |
| A reaction: A characteristically twentieth century approach, which I find puzzling. We don't need a Loch Ness Monster in order to use the term 'Loch Ness Monster'. Lewis appears to have been a pupil of Quine... He was not, though, a Predicate Nominalist. |
| 15739 | There is the property of belonging to a set, so abundant properties are as numerous as the sets [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The abundant properties far outrun the predicates of any language we could possibly possess. ...Properties are as abundant as the sets, because for any set whatever, there is the property of belonging to that set. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: The idea of calling such things 'properties' strikes me as preposterous, but it is interesting that we confront truths which outrun our predicates. We can't have all of these predicates together, but there is no impediment to any one of them. |
| 15563 | Properties are very abundant (unlike universals), and are used for semantics and higher-order variables [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Properties are abundant, numbering at least beth-3 for properties of individuals alone; they are suited to serve as semantic values of arbitrarily complex predicates and gerunds, and higher-order variables. (If there are universals, they are sparse). | |
| From: David Lewis (Events [1986], II n2) | |
| A reaction: To me this is an outrageous hijacking of the notion of property which is needed for explaining the natural world. He seems to be talking about predicates. He wants to leave me with his silly universals - well I don't want them, thank you. |
| 10723 | A property is the set of its actual and possible instances [Lewis, by Oliver] |
| Full Idea: Lewis proposes that a property is the set of its actual and possible instances. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) by Alex Oliver - The Metaphysics of Properties 10 | |
| A reaction: I just can't make sense of any proposal that a property is a set. Things fall into natural sets because they have properties. Only a philosopher would believe such a weird proposal as this one. Triangular and trilateral? |
| 14499 | Properties are classes of possible and actual concrete particulars [Lewis, by Koslicki] |
| Full Idea: Lewis has a preference for a nominalist conception of properties as classes of possible and actual concrete particulars. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983]) by Kathrin Koslicki - The Structure of Objects II.3 | |
| A reaction: I'm sympathetic to nominalism, but still can't swallow the idea that a property like redness is nothing more than a collection of particulars, the red things. This class will include all sorts of non-red features. |
| 4038 | Properties are sets of their possible instances (which separates 'renate' from 'cordate') [Lewis, by Mellor/Oliver] |
| Full Idea: Lewis agrees that properties cannot be sets of their actual instances, but claims they can be sets of their possible instances. This would distinguish coextensive properties like being cordate and renate, since they might be separated. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Modal Realism at Work: Properties [1986]) by DH Mellor / A Oliver - Introduction to 'Properties' §10 | |
| A reaction: Sounds wrong. Two properties could be obviously different even if they could never be separated. In this world a creature might briefly survive without kidneys. |
| 15399 | The property of being F is identical with the set of objects, in all possible worlds, which are F [Lewis, by Cameron] |
| Full Idea: Lewis thought that the property of being F was identical with the set of objects, in all possible worlds, which are F. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], §1.5) by Ross P. Cameron - Intrinsic and Extrinsic Properties | |
| A reaction: I can't make head or tail of a theory which says that a property is a set of objects. I'll show you a room full of objects and tell you they are a property. How are you going to work out what the property is? 'Being F' is a predicate, not a property! |
| 15732 | Properties don't seem to be sets, because different properties can have the same set [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The usual objection to taking properties as sets is that different properties may happen to be coextensive. Creatures with hearts are creatures with kidneys. Talking donkeys are flying pigs (since there are none). Yet the properties differ. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: This is the difficulty which Lewis proposes to solve by defining properties across possible situations as well as actual ones, so that the properties can come apart. Nice move. |
| 15733 | Accidentally coextensive properties come apart when we include their possible instances [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: In modal realism, 'accidentally coextensive' properties are not coextensive. They only appear so when we ignore their other-worldly instances. If we consider all instances, then it never can happen that two properties are coextensive but might have been. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: It is not clear why this 'can never happen'. Maybe even God can't make a hearted creature without kidneys. Lewis is aware of this question. |
| 15734 | If a property is relative, such as being a father or son, then set membership seems relative too [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A property that is instantiated in a relative way (such as being a father or a son) could not be the set of its instances? Is the thing to be included in the set or not? | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: He says philosophers contrive ways to define properties as functions, but he prefers to call such properties 'relations', and define them that way. It never even occurred to me that 'being a son' was one of my properties, but what do I know? |
| 15516 | A property is any class of possibilia [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A property is any class of possibilia. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 2.7) |
| 9655 | Trilateral and triangular seem to be coextensive sets in all possible worlds [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: We can't take a property as sets of this-worldly instances, because two properties may be coextensive. Some say it is just as bad in all possible worlds, if the property is necessary, as when all triangles are trilateral, which seem different. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] Renate/cordate is the standard example of the first problem. Lewis seems to equivocate over exactly what is meant by a property. I take the example to be a powerful objection to treating properties as sets. |
| 16290 | I believe in properties, which are sets of possible individuals [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I believe in properties. That is, I have my candidates for entities to play the role and deserve the name. My principal candidates are sets of possible individuals. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 3.4) | |
| A reaction: I am bewildered by any claim that a property is a 'set'. The property of being a teaspoon is just a large pile of teaspoons (one pile in each possible world)? This is the tyranny of first-order logic in philosophy. Are sets more real than properties? |
| 9653 | It would be easiest to take a property as the set of its instances [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The simplest plan for properties is to take a property just as the set of all its instances. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: I find this a weird and counterintuitive proposal. I suppose if you think maths has been reduced to set theory, you might want to reduce everything else, and then we can all go home. I thought things were in sets because of their properties. |
| 9657 | You must accept primitive similarity to like tropes, but tropes give a good account of it [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: If you will not countenance primitive similarity in any form, then trope theory is not for you. But if you will, then duplication of tropes is an especially satisfactory form of primitive similarity to take. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: This presents the question about tropes in a beautifully simple form. Perfect similarities seem fine, but partial similarities (red and pink things) are hard, and abstract reference (pinkness and redness) is even harder. |
| 15433 | Tropes are particular properties, which cannot recur, but can be exact duplicates [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Tropes are supposed to be particularized properties: nonspatiotemporal parts of their instances which cannot occur repeatedly, but can be exact duplicates. | |
| From: David Lewis (Against Structural Universals [1986], 'Intro') | |
| A reaction: Russell's objection is that 'duplication' appears to be a non-trope universal. The account seems wrong for very close resemblance, which is accepted by everyone as being the same (e.g. in colour, for football shirts). |
| 15750 | Tropes need a similarity primitive, so they cannot be used to explain similarity [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Trope theory cannot analyse similarity, because duplication of tropes is itself a primitive relation of similarity. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: A reasonable reply to this one, I think, is that no one can explain or analyse similarity. To say that the same universal (or bunch of graded universals) is instantiated explains nothing. Maybe type-identity must be primitive in any theory? |
| 15749 | Trope theory (unlike universals) needs a primitive notion of being duplicates [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Trope theory has the drawback that we need the primitive notion of duplicate tropes, whereas with universals we just say that it is one and the same universal through some charged particles. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: The normal term for this primitive is 'perfect resemblance', though that seems to make close resemblance a bit complicated and puzzling. I'm not sure if I understand resemblance as a feature of the world, rather than of our minds. |
| 15748 | Trope theory needs a primitive notion for what unites some tropes [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Trope theory needs a primitive notion - 'instantion' in yet another sense - to say how the tropes that comprise a particle are united. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: Any theory which says that objects are just 'bundles' of tropes is asking for trouble. But if you say (with Lowe and others) that tropes are 'modes' of existing entities, you still have to give an account of the entity. |
| 12477 | We get the idea of power from our own actions, and the interaction of external bodies [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Observing in ourselves that we can at pleasure move several parts of our bodies, which were at rest; the effects also that natural bodies are able to produce in one another, occurring every moment to our senses, we both these ways get the idea of power. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.07.08) | |
| A reaction: This I take to be one of the most important concepts in our understanding of the world, a concept which died out in the eighteenth century, and has now reappeared in scientific essentialism. |
| 12490 | Power is active or passive, and has a relation to actions [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Power is twofold, as able to make, or able to receive any change. The one we may call 'active', and the other 'passive' power. ..And power includes in it some kind of relation (a relation to action or change). | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.21.02) | |
| A reaction: How deep does the distinction between active and passive power go? Are they unified at some bottom level of description? |
| 12521 | We can only know a thing's powers when we have combined it with many things [Locke] |
| Full Idea: We can never be sure that we know all the powers that are in any one body, till we have tried what changes it is fitted to give to or receive from other substances, in their several ways of application. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.31.08) | |
| A reaction: This must include the possibility that some combinations are never tried, in nature or by us, and so the powers remain permananently hidden. Maybe the combination of copper and element 147 produces chaffinches. |
| 9476 | If dispositions are more fundamental than causes, then they won't conceptually reduce to them [Bird on Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Maybe a disposition is a more fundamental notion than a cause, in which case Lewis has from the very start erred in seeking a causal analysis, in a traditional, conceptual sense, of disposition terms. | |
| From: comment on David Lewis (Causation [1973]) by Alexander Bird - Nature's Metaphysics 2.2.8 | |
| A reaction: Is this right about Lewis? I see him as reducing both dispositions and causes to a set of bald facts, which exist in possible and actual worlds. Conditionals and counterfactuals also suffer the same fate. |
| 15463 | All dispositions must have causal bases [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Prior, Pargetter and Jackson have argued convincingly for the thesis that all dispositions must have causal bases. | |
| From: David Lewis (Finkish dispositions [1997], II) | |
| A reaction: [Their paper is 1982] This key thesis is tackled by modern defenders of powers. The question is not who has the best arguments, but who offers the most coherent picture. What is a 'causal basis'? What sort of thing could be primitive or fundamental? |
| 15974 | The essence of whiteness in a man is nothing but the power to produce the idea of whiteness [Locke] |
| Full Idea: In substances the most frequent [ideas] are of powers; v.g. 'a man is white' signifies that the thing that has the essence of a man has also in it the essence of whiteness, which is nothing but the power to produce the idea of whiteness in one with eyes. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.08.01) | |
| A reaction: Alexander cites this to support his claim that the powers are the same as the textures, but the quotation seems neutral about what actually constitutes the powers, and Idea 15971, seems to separate powers from textures. |
| 15120 | Lewisian properties have powers because of their relationships to other properties [Lewis, by Hawthorne] |
| Full Idea: According to Lewis's conception, the causal powers of a property are constituted by its patterned relations to other properties in the particular Humean mosaic that is the actual world. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983]) by John Hawthorne - Causal Structuralism Intro | |
| A reaction: I just can't grasp this as a serious proposal. Relations cannot be the bottom line in explanation of the world. What are the relata? I take powers to be primitive. |
| 15554 | A disposition needs a causal basis, a property in a certain causal role. Could the disposition be the property? [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I take for granted that a disposition requires a causal basis: one has the disposition iff one has a property that occupies a certain causal role. Shall we then identify the disposition with its basis? That makes the disposition cause its manifestations. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causal Explanation [1986], III) | |
| A reaction: Introduce the concept of a 'power' and I see no problem with his proposal. Fundamental dispositions are powerful, and provide the causal basis for complex dispositions. Something had better be powerful. |
| 15976 | What is the texture - the real essence - which makes substances behave in distinct ways? [Locke] |
| Full Idea: What is that texture of parts, that real essence, that makes lead, and antinomy fusible; wood and stone not? | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.09) | |
| A reaction: This quotation gives better support to Alexander's claim in Idea 15973. Locke actually says plainly that the texture (i.e. powerful combination of fine-grained corpuscles) is the essence of these substances (with, presumably, intrinsic powers). |
| 15461 | A 'finkish' disposition is real, but disappears when the stimulus occurs [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A disposition which would straight away vanish if put to the test is called 'finkish'. A finkishly fragile thing is fragile so long as it is not struck. But if it were struck, it would straight away cease to be fragile, and it would not break. | |
| From: David Lewis (Finkish dispositions [1997], I) | |
| A reaction: There are also 'antidotes'. Finks kill the disposition, antidotes kill the effect. These cases are problems for the simple conditional analysis of a disposition - because we never achieved the consequent. |
| 15983 | Locke explains powers, but effectively eliminates them with his talk of internal structure [Locke, by Alexander,P] |
| Full Idea: I suggest that Locke has explained the power, …but there is no longer any need to talk of powers since we can go straight from the internal structure to the phenomenon. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by Peter Alexander - Ideas, Qualities and Corpuscles 7 | |
| A reaction: This is rather the view of fans of categorical properties (as opposed to dispositions). If the corpuscles don't involve forces, this reading makes sense. It is, of course, wrong. |
| 8573 | Most properties are causally irrelevant, and we can't spot the relevant ones. [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Properties do nothing to capture the causal powers of things. Almost all properties are causally irrelevant, and there is nothing to make the relevant ones stand out from the crowd. | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Un and Prop') | |
| A reaction: Shoemaker, who endorses a causal account of properties, has a go at this problem in Idea 8557. The property of being massive is more likely to be causal than existing fifty years after D-Day. Lewis attempts later to address the problem. |
| 6487 | Locke, Berkeley and Hume did no serious thinking about universals [Robinson,H on Locke] |
| Full Idea: None of Locke, Berkeley or Hume shows any sign of serious thinking about the relation of their concepts of quality, idea or impression to the problem of universals; it is as if they thought this issue had disappeared. | |
| From: comment on John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by Howard Robinson - Perception 1.4 | |
| A reaction: Maybe they were right. Personally I think there is a real problem of universals, but the history of philosophy has lots of cases of deep worries about problems that don't seem to bother anyone else. |
| 8569 | I suspend judgements about universals, but their work must be done [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I suspend judgement about universals themselves; I only insist that, one way or another, their work must be done. | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Intro') | |
| A reaction: This seems surprising (but admirable) in a great metaphysician, but I suppose it is symptomatic of the Humean approach to metaphysics. In the light of Ideas 3989 and 3990, I would have expected Lewis to deny universals. He probably did. |
| 15745 | Universals recur, are multiply located, wholly present, make things overlap, and are held in common [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: One and the same universal recurs; it is multiply located; it is wholly present in both instances, a shared common part whereby the two instances overlap. Being alike by sharing a universal is 'having something in common' in an absolutely literal sense. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: A helpful spelling out of the commitment involved (in Armstrong and others) in belief in universals. To me this is a convenient list of reasons why the whole proposal is nonsense. Why does Lewis take them seriously? |
| 15453 | The main rivals to universals are resemblance or natural-class nominalism, or sparse trope theory [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The leading rivals to a theory of universals are resemblance or natural-class nominalism, or sparse trope theory. | |
| From: David Lewis (Comment on Armstrong and Forrest [1986], p.110) | |
| A reaction: If that is the complete menu, I choose resemblance nominalism. All discussion of properties in terms of classes is wildly misguided (because properties come first). Why not 'natural' tropes? |
| 15746 | If particles were just made of universals, similar particles would be the same particle [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: We cannot say that a particle is composed entirely of its several universals, because then another particle exactly like it would have the very same universals, and yet the two particles would not be the same. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: This is an argument either (implausibly) for haecceities or characterless substrata, or else for tropes (which are all separate, unlike universals). Particles as bundles of universals is not a theory I take seriously. |
| 15436 | Universals are meant to give an account of resemblance [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Perhaps the main job of a theory of universals is to give an account of resemblance. | |
| From: David Lewis (Against Structural Universals [1986], 'Why believe') | |
| A reaction: This invites the quick reply, popular with some nominalists, of taking resemblance as primitive, and hence beyond explanation. |
| 21961 | Physics aims to discover which universals actually exist [Lewis, by Moore,AW] |
| Full Idea: For Lewis, we can see the purpose of physics as being to discover what universals there actually are. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983]) by A.W. Moore - The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics Intro | |
| A reaction: It seems that Lewis uses the word 'property' to mean predicates, which consist of a multitude of sets, while universals are the properties that naturally exist and cut nature at the joints . Infuriating, because the other way around seems better. |
| 15747 | Universals aren't parts of things, because that relationship is transitive, and universals need not be [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: It cannot be said that a universal is instantiated by anything that has it as a part, since the relation of part to whole is transitive. If charge is part of a particle, which is part of an atom, then charge is part of the atom, but an atom isn't charged. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: Given the total mystery involved in 'instantiation', it wouldn't surprise me if someone appealed to the part-whole relation, but all moves to explain instantiation are desperate. Make it a primitive, if you must, then tiptoe away. |
| 7717 | All things that exist are particulars [Locke] |
| Full Idea: All things that exist are particulars. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.03.01) | |
| A reaction: This slogan is the essence of nominalism, the denial that universals exist as well as particulars. |
| 7718 | Universals do not exist, but are useful inventions of the mind, involving words or ideas [Locke] |
| Full Idea: General and universal belong, not to the real existence of things, but are the inventions and creatures of the understanding, made by it for its own use, and concern only signs, whether words, or ideas. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], III.3.11) | |
| A reaction: This places Locke as a thoroughgoing nominalist. However, while the most basic question of all is said to be 'why does anything exist?', another pretty good one is 'Why do things resemble one another?'. Maybe the universal had to come first? |
| 8576 | The One over Many problem (in predication terms) deserves to be neglected (by ostriches) [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The transformed problem of One over Many (in terms of predication, rather than sameness of type) deserves our neglect. The ostrich that will not look at it is a wise bird indeed. | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], '1 Ov Many') | |
| A reaction: This is aimed at Armstrong, and defends Quine. The remark moves Ostrich Nominalism from the category of joke to the category of respectable. I think I side with Armstrong. How is predication primitive if it has two components? |
| 15438 | We can add a primitive natural/unnatural distinction to class nominalism [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: To class nominalism we can add a primitive distinction between natural and unnatural classes. | |
| From: David Lewis (Against Structural Universals [1986], 'Why believe') | |
| A reaction: Lewis explores this elsewhere, but this looks like a very complex concept to play the role of a 'primitive'. Human conventions seem to be parts of nature. |
| 8570 | To have a property is to be a member of a class, usually a class of things [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: To have a property is to be a member of a class, usually a class of things. (Note: this resembles the doctrine of Class Nominalism, but I do not claim to solve the One Over Many problem by this means, far from it). | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Un and Prop') | |
| A reaction: Lewis remains neutral about the traditional question of whether universals exist. What does he mean by "is" in his assertion? Identity, predication or class membership? I think Lewis is open to many of the objections to Class Nominalism. |
| 8574 | Class Nominalism and Resemblance Nominalism are pretty much the same [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Moderate Class Nominalism and Resemblance Nominalism (in its present form) seem to me to be a single theory presented in different styles. | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Un and Prop' n9) | |
| A reaction: Lewis has earlier endorsed a cautious form of Class Nominalism (Idea 8570). Which comes first, having a resemblance, or being in a class? Quine seems to make resemblance basic (Idea 8486), but Lewis seems to make the class basic (Idea 8572). |
| 12499 | Bodies distinctively have cohesion of parts, and power to communicate motion [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The primary ideas we have peculiar to body are the cohesion of solid, and consequently separable parts, and a power of communicating motion by impulse. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.23.17) | |
| A reaction: Defining bodies by motion seems unusual. I would be more inclined to mention inertia and solidity before impulse to move things. Depends on your physics I suppose, and Locke was writing only a year or two after Newton's book. |
| 1211 | Viewing an object at an instant, we perceive identity when we see it must be that thing and not another [Locke] |
| Full Idea: When we see anything to be in any place in any instant of time, we are sure that it is that very thing and not another, ..and in this consists identity, when the ideas it is attributed to vary not at all. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.01) | |
| A reaction: It seems to me that Locke starts by getting it right, that we instantly perceive identities, but then confuses it with some intellectual process of comparison, and ends up thinking that idea of things is identity of ideas, which it isn't. |
| 12508 | Living things retain identity through change, by a principle of organisation [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The identity of living creatures depends not on a mass of the same particles. An oak growing from a plant to a great tree, and the lopped, is still the same oak. ..the oak is the organisation of its parts to receive and distribute nourishment. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.03) | |
| A reaction: Compare Idea 12507. The problem case is then inanimate matter which has a structure, such as a statue or a crystal. Living things seem to be individuated by function, so does that apply to statues? Suppose you hollow out a solid statue? |
| 15455 | Total intrinsic properties give us what a thing is [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The way something is is given by the totality of its intrinsic properties. | |
| From: David Lewis (Extrinsic Properties [1983], I) | |
| A reaction: No. Some properties are intrinsic but trivial. The 'important' ones fix the identity (if the identity is indeed 'fixed'). |
| 12506 | A thing is individuated just by existing at a time and place [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The principium individuationis, 'tis plain, is existence itself, which determines a being of any sort to a particular time and place incommunicable to two beings of the same kind. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.03) | |
| A reaction: I wish I could get completely clear about what a 'principle of individuation' is supposed to do. E.J. Lowe is always banging on about them. I would have thought that being an individual had to precede any 'principle' underlying it. |
| 12563 | Obviously two bodies cannot be in the same place [Locke] |
| Full Idea: I think it is a self-evident proposition that two bodies cannot be in the same place. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.07.05) | |
| A reaction: If you accept this, and you want to define what a physical 'body' is, then clearly this condition must be implicitly or explicitly included. |
| 12529 | I speak of a 'sortal' name, from the word 'sort' [Locke] |
| Full Idea: I call a name 'sortal' from 'sort', as I do 'general' from 'genus'. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.03.15) |
| 8546 | Powers are part of our idea of substances [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Powers make a great part of our complex ideas of substances. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.23.08) | |
| A reaction: This is quoted by Shoemaker, and is very important in modern thinking about properties and causation. I think it is a crucial idea, which got relegated into obscurity by Hume's unnecessarily ruthless empiricism. |
| 1196 | We can conceive of three sorts of substance: God, finite intelligence, and bodies [Locke] |
| Full Idea: We have the ideas but of three sorts of substance; 1. God. 2. Finite intelligence. 3. Bodies. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.02) | |
| A reaction: Given Locke's scepticism about our ability to know of substances, this seems a bold claim, and can only really be a report of contemporary culture and language. |
| 12536 | We sort and name substances by nominal and not by real essence [Locke] |
| Full Idea: We sort and name substances by their nominal and not by their real essences. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.26) |
| 7945 | We think of substance as experienced qualities plus a presumed substratum of support [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Everyone upon inquiry into his thoughts, will find that he has no other idea of any substance, but what he has barely of those sensible qualities, with a supposition of such a substratum as give support to those qualities, which he observes exist united. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.23.06) | |
| A reaction: This is the orginal of the 'substratum' view of substances. The whole problem is captured here, because this is an empiricist trying not to extend his ontology beyond experience, but trying to explain unity, identity and continuity. |
| 12485 | We don't know what substance is, and only vaguely know what it does [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Of substance, we have no idea of what it is, but only a confused obscure one of what it does. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.13.19) | |
| A reaction: Locke seems to identityf 'substance' with 'real essence', about which he makes similar remarks. He was deeply pessimistic about our ability to unravel how the physical world works. Note that he isn't denying the existence of substance. |
| 15537 | If cats are vague, we deny that the many cats are one, or deny that the one cat is many [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: To deny that there are many cats on the mat (because removal of a few hairs seems to produce a new one), we must either deny that the many are cats, or else deny that the cats are many. ...I think both alternatives lead to successful solutions. | |
| From: David Lewis (Many, but almost one [1993], 'The paradox') | |
| A reaction: He credits the problem to Geach (and Tibbles), and says it is the same as Unger's 'problem of the many' (Idea 15536). |
| 16796 | Locke may accept coinciding material substances, such as body, man and person [Locke, by Pasnau] |
| Full Idea: The most popular reading of Locke is that he endorses multiple, coinciding, material substances. In a human being, for example, there would be a body, a man and a person. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27) by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 30.4 | |
| A reaction: Since he says that substances can only coincide if they are of different types then this may be a misreading, as Pasnau implies. |
| 15536 | We have one cloud, but many possible boundaries and aggregates for it [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Many surfaces are equally good candidates to be boundaries of a cloud; therefore many aggregates of droplets are equally good candidates to be the cloud. How is it that we have just one cloud? And yet we do. This is Unger's (1980) 'problem of the many'. | |
| From: David Lewis (Many, but almost one [1993], 'The problem') | |
| A reaction: This is the problem of vague objects, as opposed to the problem of vague predicates, or the problem of vague truths, or the problem of vague prepositions (like 'towards'). |
| 15452 | We could not uphold a truthmaker for 'Fa' without structures [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: We could not, without structures, uphold the principle that every truth has a truthmaker. If Fa is true, the truthmaker is not F, not a, nor both together; not their mereological sum; not a set-theoretic construction. These would exist just the same. | |
| From: David Lewis (Comment on Armstrong and Forrest [1986], p.109) | |
| A reaction: This point ought to trouble Lewis, as well as Armstrong and Forrest. If we assert 'Fa', we must (in any theory) have some idea of what unites them, as well as of their separate existence. It must a fact about 'a', not a fact about 'F'. |
| 15448 | The 'magical' view of structural universals says they are atoms, even though they have parts [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The 'magical' conception of structural universals says 'simple' must be distinguished from 'atomic'. A structural universal is never simple; it involves other, simpler, universals, but it is mereologically atomic. The other universals are not its parts. | |
| From: David Lewis (Against Structural Universals [1986], 'The magical') | |
| A reaction: Hence the 'magic' is for it to be an indissoluble unity, while acknowledging that it has parts. Personally I don't see much problem with this view, since universals already perform the magical feat of being 'instantiated', whatever that means. |
| 15449 | If 'methane' is an atomic structural universal, it has nothing to connect it to its carbon universals [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: What is it about the universal carbon that gets it involved in necessary connections with methane? Why not rubidium instead? The universal 'carbon' has nothing more in common with the universal methane than the universal rubidium has! | |
| From: David Lewis (Against Structural Universals [1986], 'The magical') | |
| A reaction: This is his objection to the 'magical' unity of structural universals. The point is that if methane is an atomic unity, as claimed, it can't have anything 'in common' with its components. |
| 15439 | The 'pictorial' view of structural universals says they are wholes made of universals as parts [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: On the 'pictorial' conception, a structural universal is isomorphic to its instances. ...It is an individual, a mereological composite, not a set. ...It is composed of simpler universals which are literally parts of it. | |
| From: David Lewis (Against Structural Universals [1986], 'The pictorial') | |
| A reaction: I'm not clear why Lewis labels this the 'pictorial' view. His other two views of structural universals are 'linguistic' and 'magical'. The linguistic is obviously wrong, and the magical doesn't sound promising. Must I vote for pictorial? |
| 15441 | The structural universal 'methane' needs the universal 'hydrogen' four times over [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: What is wrong with the pictorial conception is that if the structural universal 'methane' is to be an isomorph of the molecules that are its instances, it must have the universal 'hydrogen' as a part not just once, but four times over. | |
| From: David Lewis (Against Structural Universals [1986], 'The pictorial') | |
| A reaction: The point is that if hydrogen is a universal it must be unique, so there can't be four of them. To me this smacks of the hopeless mess theologians get into, because of bad premisses. Drop universals, and avoid this kind of stuff. |
| 15445 | Butane and Isobutane have the same atoms, but different structures [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The stuctural universal 'isobutane' consists of the universal carbon four times over, hydrogen ten times over, and the universal 'bonded' thirteen times over - just like the universal 'butane'. | |
| From: David Lewis (Against Structural Universals [1986], 'Variants') | |
| A reaction: The point is that isobutane and butane have the same components in different structures. At least this is Lewis facing up to the problem of the 'flatness' of mereological wholes. |
| 15434 | Structural universals have a necessary connection to the universals forming its parts [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: There is a necessary connection between the instantiating of a structural universal by the whole and the instantiating of other universals by its parts. We can call the relation 'involvement', a nondescript word. | |
| From: David Lewis (Against Structural Universals [1986], 'What are') | |
| A reaction: In the case of a shape, I suppose the composing 'universals' [dunno what they are] will all be essential to the shape - that is, part of the very nature of the thing, loss of which would destroy the identity. |
| 15437 | We can't get rid of structural universals if there are no simple universals [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: We can't dispense with structural universals if we cannot be sure that there are any simples which can be involved in them. | |
| From: David Lewis (Against Structural Universals [1986], 'Why believe') | |
| A reaction: Lewis cites this as Armstrong's strongest reason for accepting structural universals (and he takes their requirement for an account of laws of nature as the weakest). I can't comprehend a world that lacks underlying simplicity. |
| 12507 | A mass consists of its atoms, so the addition or removal of one changes its identity [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Whilst they exist united together, the mass consisting of the same atoms must be the same mass, ...but if one of those atoms be taken away, or one new one added, it is no longer the same mass, or the same body. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.03) | |
| A reaction: This is clearly a 'strict and philosophical' usage, rather than a 'loose and popular' one - indeed, so strict as to be ridiculous. Knowing what we do now of quantum activity (emission of photons etc), we would abandon 'identity' totally. |
| 15446 | Composition is not just making new things from old; there are too many counterexamples [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Not just any operation that makes new things from old is a form of composition! There is no sense in which my parents are part of me, and no sense in which two numbers are parts of their greatest common factor. | |
| From: David Lewis (Against Structural Universals [1986], 'Variants') | |
| A reaction: One of those rare moments when David Lewis seems to have approached a really sensible metaphysics. Further on he rejects all forms of composition apart from mereology. |
| 14748 | The many are many and the one is one, so they can't be identical [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: What is true of the many is not exactly what is true of the one. After all they are many while it is one. The number of the many is six, whereas the number of the fusion is one. The singletons of the many are distinct from the singleton of the one. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 3.6) | |
| A reaction: I wouldn't take this objection to be conclusive. 'Some pebbles' seem to be many, but a 'handful of pebbles' seem to be one, where the physical situation might be identical. If they are not identical, then the non-identity is purely conceptual. |
| 6129 | Lewis affirms 'composition as identity' - that an object is no more than its parts [Lewis, by Merricks] |
| Full Idea: Lewis says that the parts of a thing are identical with the whole they compose, calling his view 'composition as identity', which is the claim that a physical object is 'nothing over and above its parts'. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], p.84-7) by Trenton Merricks - Objects and Persons §I.IV | |
| A reaction: The ontological economy of this view is obviously attractive, but I don't agree with it. You certainly can't say that all identity consists entirely of composition by parts, because the parts need identity to get the view off the ground. |
| 12559 | Complex ideas are collections of qualities we attach to an unknown substratum [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The complex ideas that our names of the species of substances properly stand for are collections of qualities, as have been observed to co-exist in an unknown substratum which we call 'substance'. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.06.07) | |
| A reaction: Locke refers to a substratum, but this is not actually a 'bare' substratum, as he believes in real essences (see other quotations), but believes we have absolutely no chance of knowing them. |
| 14210 | A gerrymandered mereological sum can be a mess, but still have natural joints [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The mereological sum of the coffee in my cup, the ink in this sentence, a nearby sparrow, and my left shoe is a miscellaneous mess of an object, yet its boundaries are by no means unrelated to the joints of nature. | |
| From: David Lewis (Putnam's Paradox [1984], 'What Might') | |
| A reaction: In that case they do, but if there are no atoms at the root of physics then presumably their could also be thoroughly jointless assemblages, involving probability distributions etc. Even random scattered atoms seem rather short of joints. |
| 15512 | In mereology no two things consist of the same atoms [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: It is a principle of mereology that no two things consist of exactly the same atoms. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 2.3) | |
| A reaction: The problem with this is screamingly obvious - that the same atoms might differ in structure. Lewis did refer to this problem, but seems to try to wriggle out of it, in Idea 15444. |
| 15519 | Trout-turkeys exist, despite lacking cohesion, natural joints and united causal power [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A trout-turkey is inhomogeneous, disconnected, not in contrast with its surroundings. It is not cohesive, not causally integrated, not a causal unit in its impact on the rest of the world. It is not carved at the joints. That doesn't affect its existence. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 3.5) | |
| A reaction: A nice pre-emptive strike against all the reasons why anyone might think more is needed for unity than a mereological fusion. |
| 15521 | Given cats, a fusion of cats adds nothing further to reality [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Given a prior commitment to cats, a commitment to cat-fusions is not a further commitment. The fusion is nothing over and above the cats that compose it. It just is them. They just are it. Together or separately, the cats are the same portion of Reality. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 3.6) | |
| A reaction: The two extremes of ontology are that there are no objects, or that every combination is an object. Until reading this I thought Lewis was in the second camp, but this sounds like object-nihilism, as in Van Inwagen and Merricks. |
| 15522 | The one has different truths from the many; it is one rather than many, one rather than six [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: What's true of the many is not exactly what's true of the one. After all they are many while it is one. The number of the many is six, whereas the number of the fusion is one. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 3.6) | |
| A reaction: Together with Idea 15521, this nicely illustrates the gulf between commitment to ontology and commitment to truths. The truths about a fusion change, while its ontology remains the same. Possibly this is the key to all of metaphysics. |
| 14244 | Lewis only uses fusions to create unities, but fusions notoriously flatten our distinctions [Oliver/Smiley on Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Lewis employs mereological fusion as his sole method of making one thing out of many, and fusion is notorious for the way it flattens out and thereby obliterates distinctions. | |
| From: comment on David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991]) by Oliver,A/Smiley,T - What are Sets and What are they For? 3.1 | |
| A reaction: I take this to be a key point in the discussion of mereology in ontological contexts. As a defender of intrinsic structural essences, I have no use for mereological fusions, and look for a quite different identity for 'wholes'. |
| 10660 | A commitment to cat-fusions is not a further commitment; it is them and they are it [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Given a prior commitment to cats, a commitment to cat-fusions is not a further commitment. The fusion is nothing over and above the cats that compose it. It just is them. They just are it. | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], p.81), quoted by Achille Varzi - Mereology 4.3 | |
| A reaction: I take this to make Lewis a nominalist, saying the same thing that Goodman said about Utah in Idea 10657. Any commitment to cat-fusions being more than the cats, or Utah being more than its counties, strikes me as crazy. |
| 10810 | I say that absolutely any things can have a mereological fusion [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I accept the principle of Unrestricted Composition: whenever there are some things, no matter how many or how unrelated or how disparate in character they may be, they have a mereological fusion. ...The trout-turkey is part fish and part fowl. | |
| From: David Lewis (Mathematics is Megethology [1993], p.07) | |
| A reaction: This nicely ducks the question of when things form natural wholes and when they don't, but I would have thought that that might be one of the central issues of metaphysicals, so I think I'll give Lewis's principle a miss. |
| 9667 | Mereological composition is unrestricted: any class of things has a mereological sum [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I claim that mereological composition is unrestricted: any old class of things has a mereological sum. Whenever there are some things, even out of different possible worlds, there is something composed of just those things. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 4.3) | |
| A reaction: To say the least, a rather unusual usage for the English word 'thing'. I presume that Lewis is in the grip of a slippery slope problem - that there is no way to define the borderline between things and non-things. Presumably 'class' is unrestricted too. |
| 13268 | There are no restrictions on composition, because they would be vague, and composition can't be vague [Lewis, by Sider] |
| Full Idea: Lewis says that if not every class has a fusion then there must be a restriction on composition. The only plausible restrictions would be vague ones, which is impossible, because then whether composition occurs would be vague. So every class has a fusion. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], p.212-3) by Theodore Sider - Four Dimensionalism 9.1 | |
| A reaction: This is Lewis's key argument in favour of unrestricted composition, his Vagueness Argument. Why can't composition be vague? If you gradually reassemble a broken mirror, at what point does the mirror acquire its unity? |
| 15440 | A whole is distinct from its parts, but is not a further addition in ontology [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A whole is an extra item in our ontology only in the minimal sense that it is not identical to any of its proper parts; but it is not distinct from them either, so when we believe in the parts it is no extra burden to believe in the whole. | |
| From: David Lewis (Against Structural Universals [1986], 'The pictorial') | |
| A reaction: A little confusing, to be 'not identical' and yet 'not different'. As Lewis says elsewhere, the whole is one, and the parts are not. A crux. Essentialism implies a sort of holism, that parts with a structure constitute a new thing. |
| 15444 | Different things (a toy house and toy car) can be made of the same parts at different times [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Different things can be made of the same parts at different times, as when the tinkertoy house is taken apart and put back together as a tinkertoy car. | |
| From: David Lewis (Against Structural Universals [1986], 'Variants') | |
| A reaction: More important than it looks! This is Lewis's evasion of the question of the structure of the parts. Times will individuate different structures, but if I take type-identical parts and make a house and a car simultaneously, are they type-identical? |
| 10566 | Lewis prefers giving up singletons to giving up sums [Lewis, by Fine,K] |
| Full Idea: In the face of the conflict between mereology and set theory, Lewis has advocated giving up the existence of singletons rather than sums. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991]) by Kit Fine - Replies on 'Limits of Abstraction' 1 |
| 11976 | Aristotelian essentialism says essences are not relative to specification [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: So-called 'Aristotelian essentialism' is the doctrine of essences not relative to specifications. | |
| From: David Lewis (Counterpart theory and Quant. Modal Logic [1968], III) | |
| A reaction: In other words, they are so-called 'real essences', understood as de re. Quine says essences are all de dicto, and relative to some specification. I vote for Aristotle. |
| 12498 | Particular substances are coexisting ideas that seem to flow from a hidden essence [Locke] |
| Full Idea: We come to the ideas of particular sorts of substances, by collecting combinations of simple ideas that exist together, and are therefore supposed to flow from the particular internal constitution, or unknown essence of that substance. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.23.03) | |
| A reaction: This is Locke's concept of essence, as the source which gives rise to the other properties of a thing. Locke waxes sarcastic about this 'I know not what' in things, but he never actually denies it. He just thinks it is beyond our grasp. |
| 12520 | The best I can make of real essence is figure, size and connection of solid parts [Locke] |
| Full Idea: When I enquire into the real essence, from which all the properties flow, I cannot discover it: the farthest I can go, is only to presume that it being nothing but body, its essence must be the figure, size and connection of its solid parts. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.31.06) | |
| A reaction: I say we have now discovered the essence of gold (for example), and that 'figure, size and connection' of parts is quite a good account of what we have discovered, namely the 79 protons, the neutrons, and the electron shell, with forces. |
| 13771 | Real essence is the constitution of the unknown parts of a body which produce its qualities [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The real essence is the constitution of the insensible parts of that body, on which those qualities, and all the other properties of gold depend. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.02) | |
| A reaction: This is an unequivocal commitment to the possibility of a real traditional Aristotelian essence. All of Locke's reservations, and even his scorn, are reserved for the apparently insurmountable epistemological problems. Locke needed a time machine. |
| 16038 | Locke may distinguish real essence from internal constitution, claiming the latter is knowable [Locke, by Jones,J-E] |
| Full Idea: It may be that for Locke 'real essences' and 'internal constitution' cannot be synonymous because, according to Locke, real essences are unknowable, but internal constitutions are knowable. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.23.12) by Jan-Erik Jones - Real Essence §4.4 | |
| A reaction: [He cites Susanna Goodin 1998; evidence for the first half is 4.6.5 and 12, and for the second is 2.23.12] One suggestion [citing 4.6.11] is that essence includes the powers, but constitution is the material components. |
| 12810 | We can conceive an individual without assigning it to a kind [Locke, by Jolley] |
| Full Idea: Locke assumes that one could have the concept of an individual without assigning it to any kind. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by Nicholas Jolley - Leibniz and Locke on Essences p.205 | |
| A reaction: I'm not sure of the evidence for this, and Jolley says that Leibniz disagrees (in the Essaies). I cling to it because I take it to be correct. Identifying a kind seems to me to be a good way for us to get at an individual essence, but that is all. |
| 16786 | You can't distinguish individuals without the species as a standard [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Talk of specific differences without reference to general ideas is unintelligible. What is sufficient to make an essential difference between two particular beings without a standard of the species? Particulars alone will have all qualities essentially. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.05) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] The last idea is now called 'superessentialism'. I don't actually understand this. Can you not distinguish between two cats before you have classified them as 'cats', and invoked generalities about cats? Just list their features. |
| 15992 | Many individuals grouped under one name vary more than some things that have different names [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Anyone who observes their different qualities can hardly doubt that many of the individuals, called by the same name, are, in their internal constitution, as different from one another as several of those which are ranked under different specific names. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.10.20) | |
| A reaction: I take this to agree with Aristotle, and disagree with the medieval scholastic view that essences pertain to species. Locke and I think that the so-called essences of natural kinds and sortal classes are just loose inductive generalisations. |
| 15990 | Every individual thing which exists has an essence, which is its internal constitution [Locke] |
| Full Idea: I take essences to be in everything that internal constitution or frame for the modification of substance, which God in his wisdom gives to every particular creature, when he gives it a being; and such essences I grant there are in all things that exist. | |
| From: John Locke (Letters to Edward Stillingfleet [1695], Letter 1), quoted by Simon Blackburn - Quasi-Realism no Fictionalism | |
| A reaction: This is the clearest statement I have found of Locke's commitment to essences, for all his doubts about whether we can know such things. Alexander says (ch.13) Locke was reacting against scholastic essence, as pertaining to species. |
| 12530 | The less rational view of essences is that they are moulds for kinds of natural thing [Locke] |
| Full Idea: There are two opinions of essence: one suppose a certain number of those essences according to which natural things are made, and wherein they do exactly every one of them partake, and so become this or that species. The other more rational opinion.... | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.03.17) | |
| A reaction: The more rational view is essence as the inner constitution which gives rise to the other properties. The view described here views essences (he says) as 'moulds', and has problems with unusual individual animals that are misfits. |
| 12532 | Even real essence depends on a sort, since it is sorts which have the properties [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Even real essence relates to a sort, and supposes a species: for being that real constitution on which the properties depend, it necessarily supposes a sort of things, properties belonging only to species and not to individuals. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.06) | |
| A reaction: This seems a striking reversal of what Locke said about real and sortal essence in Idea 12530. I don't think I understand why 'properties belong only to species'. Surely Locke's individual 'monsters' have distinctive properties? But see Idea 12533. |
| 12539 | If every sort has its real essence, one horse, being many sorts, will have many essences [Locke] |
| Full Idea: If anyone thinks that a man, a horse, an animal, a plant, are distinguished by real essences made by nature, he must think nature to be very liberal, making one for body, another for an animal, and another for a horse, all bestowed upon Bucephalus. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.32) | |
| A reaction: This is a powerful argument in favour of individual essences, and strongly against kind essences. Locke at his best, I would say. |
| 12510 | Not all identity is unity of substance [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Unity of substance does not comprehend all sorts of identity, and will not determine it in every case. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.07) | |
| A reaction: He has been discussing living things, and persons. If identity is seen functionally, then presumably substance can change while identity is retained. But we must not slide into equating substance [ousia?] with matter [hule?]. |
| 11155 | Essence is the very being of any thing, whereby it is what it is [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Essence may be taken for the very being of any thing, whereby it is, what it is. And thus the real internal, but generally in substances, unknown constitution of things, whereon their discoverable qualities depend, may be called their essence. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.03.15) | |
| A reaction: Fine cites this as following the Aristotelian definitional account of essence, rather than the account in terms of necessities. Locke goes on to distinguish 'real' from 'nominal' essence. |
| 13793 | An essential property is one possessed by all counterparts [Lewis, by Elder] |
| Full Idea: For Lewis, if a property possessed by a given individual or kind is missing in some of the contextually relevant counterparts, that property is accidental to the individual or kind; if it is possessed by all of them, that property is essential. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 248-263) by Crawford L. Elder - Real Natures and Familiar Objects 1.4 | |
| A reaction: This is a sophisticated version of the idea that essential properties are just necessary properties. It might make sense with a very sparse view of properties (mainly causal ones), but I think of essences as quite different from necessities. |
| 12560 | We can only slightly know necessary co-existence of qualities, if they are primary [Locke] |
| Full Idea: What other qualities necessarily co-exist with a substance we cannot know, unless we can discover their natural dependence; which in their primary qualities we can go but a very little way in, and in secondary qualities we know no connexion at all. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.06.07) | |
| A reaction: His concept of essence is precisely that which gives rise to the collection of a thing's properties, so his doubts here are consistent. I take the modern position to be an optimist reading of Locke, that actually we can identify the substances. |
| 16787 | Explanatory essence won't do, because it won't distinguish the accidental from the essential [Locke, by Pasnau] |
| Full Idea: There is no non-arbitrary way to pick out certain features as essential and others as purely accidental. …This argument of Locke's blocks explanatory essence. …There is a confusion of nominal with real essence. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 27.7 | |
| A reaction: Pasnau waxes enthusiastic about this demolition of explanatory essence, and says we must fall back on kinds. It is true that you would need to compare a few tigers to get at the essence of an individual tiger. It's induction, but there are exceptions. |
| 16028 | Lockean real essence makes a thing what it is, and produces its observable qualities [Locke, by Jones,J-E] |
| Full Idea: For Locke, a real essence is what makes something what it is, and in the case of physical substances, it is the underlying physical cause of the object's observable qualities. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by Jan-Erik Jones - Real Essence Intro | |
| A reaction: A helpful summary from a Locke expert. Is 'what it is' its type, or its individuality? Is the 'underlying cause' sufficiently coherent, or is it just a tangle of unseen activities? |
| 12305 | Locke's essences determine the other properties, so the two will change together [Locke, by Copi] |
| Full Idea: For Locke the real essence of a thing is a set of properties which determine all the other properties of that thing [3.3.15], so essential properties are not retained during any change, and there is no real knowledge of the essence of things. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.03) by Irving M. Copi - Essence and Accident p.712 | |
| A reaction: Although I like the Aristotelian view, this account of Locke's must be taken seriously. Compare Idea 12304. If Aristotelian essence founds scientific knowledge, then a thing with varying behaviour has a varying essence. |
| 15985 | It is impossible for two things with the same real essence to differ in properties [Locke] |
| Full Idea: It is as impossible that two things, partaking exactly of the same real essence, should have different properties, as that two figures partaking in the same real essence of a circle, should have different properties. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.03.17) | |
| A reaction: Two circles could be of relatively different size, so we deduce from that that size is not essential. Hence essence of gold seems to be defined as those respects in which two samples of gold never vary. But that might be superficial… |
| 12534 | We cannot know what properties are necessary to gold, unless we first know its real essence [Locke] |
| Full Idea: We can never know what are the precise number of properties depending on the real essence of gold, any one of which failing, the real essence of gold, and consequently gold, would not be there, unless we knew the real essence of gold itself. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.19) | |
| A reaction: Excellent. This is a splendid reason why we should not make the mistake of thinking that essence consists of necessary properties. |
| 13434 | In our ideas, the idea of essence is inseparable from the concept of a species [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Let any one examine his own thoughts, and he will find, that as soon as he supposes or speaks of essential, the consideration of some species, or the complex idea, signified by some general name, comes into his mind. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.04) | |
| A reaction: This wouldn't stop an individual having a distinct essence, if essences are distinctive combinations of these species qualities. Thus if my dog is particularly ferocious, it combines the species of dog and the species of ferocious in a unique way. |
| 16035 | If we based species on real essences, the individuals would be as indistinguishable as two circles [Locke] |
| Full Idea: If things were distinguished into species according to real essences, it would be impossible to find different properties in two individual substances of the same species, as it is to find different properties in two circles or two equilateral triangles. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.08) | |
| A reaction: Of course circles or triangles can differ in size. Locke was greatly impressed by individual variation in creatures ('monsters'). My cat isn't just any old cat. Species essentialism must at least acknowledge more than mere essences. |
| 16036 | Internal constitution doesn't decide a species; should a watch contain four wheels or five? [Locke] |
| Full Idea: What is sufficient in the inward contrivance, to make a new species? There are some watches, that are made with four wheels, others with five. Is this a specific different to the workman…in the internal constitution of watches? | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.39) | |
| A reaction: It so happens that most species turn out to be internally very similar, but Locke is right that it might not be the case. |
| 12540 | Artificial things like watches and pistols have distinct kinds [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Artificial things are of distinct species, as well as natural. ..For why should we not think a watch and a pistol as distinct species one from another, as a horse and a dog? | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.41) | |
| A reaction: This is the beginning of a topic which has caused a lot of modern debate in trying to assess essentialist claims. |
| 12812 | Things have real essences, but we categorise them according to the ideas we receive [Locke] |
| Full Idea: This I do say, that there are real constitutions in things from whence simple ideas flow, which we observe combin'd in them. But we distinguish particular substances into sorts or genera not by real essences or constitutions, but by observed simple ideas. | |
| From: John Locke (Letters to William Molyneux [1692], 1693.01.20) | |
| A reaction: This is the clearest statement I can find of Locke's position on essences. He is totally committed to their reality, but strongly aware of the empirical constraints which keep us from direct knowledge of them. He would be amazed by modern discoveries. |
| 16031 | Real essence explains observable qualities, but not what kind of thing it is [Locke, by Jones,J-E] |
| Full Idea: Locke defines real essence as the cause of the observable qualities, and then argues that this internal constitution is not what answers the 'what is it?' question, because species is only determined by outward appearance, i.e. by nominal essence. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by Jan-Erik Jones - Real Essence §2 | |
| A reaction: Helpful. This explains why sortal essentialism and essentialism based on kinds is misguided. |
| 15646 | If essence is 'nominal', artificial gold (with its surface features) would qualify as 'gold' [Locke, by Eagle] |
| Full Idea: For Locke, if we found out how to make some stuff which has the same nominal definition as gold, then we have found out how to make a new kind of gold. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by Antony Eagle - Locke on Essences and Kinds V | |
| A reaction: Unfair to Locke. He could see no way to get below the surface; we can do that. Obviously we will treat as gold any substance which we are utterly unable to distinguish from gold. Maybe we are doing that right now. |
| 12306 | 'Nominal essence' is everything contained in the idea of a particular sort of thing [Locke, by Copi] |
| Full Idea: Locke was more interested in 'nominal essences'. ...The abstract idea of various particular substances that resemble each other ..determines a sort or a species, the 'nominal essence', for "everything contained in that idea is essential to that sort". | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by Irving M. Copi - Essence and Accident p.712 | |
| A reaction: [He refers us to Locke 'Essay' 3.3, and others] This seems to be the sortals espoused by Wiggins, so is he more of a Lockean than an Aristotelian? He's a slippery fish. Knowing the sort is said by Locke to be the key to knowledge. |
| 15988 | The observable qualities are never the real essence, since they depend on real essence [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Since the powers or qualities that are observable by us are not the real essence of that substance, but depend on it and flow from it, any collection whatsoever of these qualities cannot be the real essence of that thing. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.31.13) | |
| A reaction: Of triangles he says that we can observe the real essence. Oderberg defends the view that real essences are largely observable, but I take them to largely consist of hidden features. |
| 15644 | In nominal essence, Locke confuses the set of properties with the abstracted idea of them [Eagle on Locke] |
| Full Idea: Locke sometimes confuses the nominal essence (a set of properties) with the abstract idea that is the meaning of the general term. | |
| From: comment on John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.03.13) by Antony Eagle - Locke on Essences and Kinds IV | |
| A reaction: I'm a bit surprised by this view. I took Locke to be referring entirely to the abstracted ideas that give the meaning of the term. I don't take him to be referring to any set of real properties (e.g. 'secondary' ones) intrinsic to the object. |
| 12537 | To be a nominal essence, a complex idea must exhibit unity [Locke] |
| Full Idea: To make any nominal essence, it is necessary that the ideas whereof it consists have such an union as to make but one idea, how compounded soever. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.28) | |
| A reaction: This distinguishes nominal essences from his other 'mixed modes', which are just collocations of ideas, but not necessarily exhibiting unity. |
| 16029 | Locke's real and nominal essence refers back to Aristotle's real and nominal definitions [Locke, by Jones,J-E] |
| Full Idea: Locke's distinction between real and nominal essences appears to be in reference to the Aristotelian distinction between real and nominal definitions. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.02) by Jan-Erik Jones - Real Essence §2 | |
| A reaction: A revealing observation. Locke's philosophy is thoroughly Aristotelian in character, but with the addition of an empirical scepticism that blocks the more speculative (and explanatory) aspects of Aristotle. |
| 12531 | Nominal Essence is the abstract idea to which a name is attached [Locke] |
| Full Idea: I call by the name of Nominal Essence what is nothing but the abstract idea to which the name is annexed. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.02) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] Note that Locke is not saying that nominal essence is just words, the verbal definition of the name. Superfluous words in a definition would not be part of the nominal essence if they were not truly part of the idea. |
| 13433 | Essences relate to sorting words; if you replace those with names, essences vanish [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Essence, in the ordinary use of the word, relates to sorts; ..take but away the abstract ideas by which we sort individuals, and rank them under common names, and then the thought of anything essential to any of them instantly vanishes. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.04) | |
| A reaction: The claim seems to be that if you refer to 'the dog', you instantly see its doggy essence, but if you refer to 'Fido' you see no such thing. But he is confusing the name with the idea. 'Fido' reveals no essence, but my idea of my beloved dog does. |
| 12533 | Real essences are unknown, so only the nominal essence connects things to a species [Locke] |
| Full Idea: We only suppose the being of real essences, without precisely knowing what they are: but that which annexes them still to the species is the nominal essence. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.06) | |
| A reaction: Compare Idea 12532. Locke can't quite make up his mind about the role of the 'sort' in our understanding of essence. His most consistent position is (I take it) to reject it entirely, as he did at first. ...Beginning of 3.06.07 confirms this. |
| 12557 | Our ideas of substance are based on mental archetypes, but these come from the world [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Our ideas of substance being supposed copies, and referred to archetypes within us, must still be taken from something that does or has existed; they must not consist of ideas put together at the pleasure of our thoughts. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.04.12) | |
| A reaction: This is a begrudging concession from Locke, who has been rather sarcastic about our supposed knowledge of substance. His is a realist about the physical world, and rightly says that our ideas are shaped by externals. We just don't have the evidence. |
| 12561 | For 'all gold is malleable' to be necessary, it must be part of gold's nominal essence [Locke] |
| Full Idea: If malleableness makes not a part of the specific essence the name 'gold' stands for, 'tis plain, 'all gold is malleable' is not a certain proposition. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.06.08) | |
| A reaction: So why would we think that being malleable was part of the essence of gold, while being shaped like a wedding ring was not? The answer is that we are not only concerned with the 'nominal' essence. |
| 12525 | The essence of a triangle is simple; presumably substance essences are similar [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The essence of a triangle lies in a very little compass, consists in a very few lines; ...so I imagine it is in substances, their real essences lie in a little compass, though the properties flowing from that internal constitution are endless. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.32.24) | |
| A reaction: This is the clearest evidence I can find that Locke firmly believed in real essence of substances, despite all his sarcasm about anyone who claimed to know what they are. He evidently knows at least one real essence, namely that of the triangle. |
| 13431 | A space between three lines is both the nominal and real essence of a triangle, the source of its properties [Locke] |
| Full Idea: A space between three lines is the real as well as nominal essence of a Triangle; it being not only the abstract idea to which the name is annexed, but the very Essentia or Being of the thing itself, that foundation from which all its properties flow. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.03.18) | |
| A reaction: Highly significant, coming from a famous doubter of essences. It seems to me that Locke would accept that we know have the essences of innumberable physical entities, which seemed impossible in his day. |
| 13423 | The schools recognised that they don't really know essences, because they couldn't coin names for them [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The schools seem to intimate the confession of all mankind, that they have no idea of the real essences and substances, since they have not names for such ideas. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.08.2) | |
| A reaction: He observes that schools timidly coined a few abstract terms for essences, but that they never caught on. This is an interesting criticism of essentialism from ordinary language. If a term names something real, it ought to 'catch on'. |
| 12804 | There are no independent natural kinds - or our classifications have to be subjective [Locke, by Jolley] |
| Full Idea: Locke has two forms of antiessentialism: that there are no natural kinds independently of our own minds; or (weaker) that in practice we classify things on the basis not of their real essences but of their observable properties. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by Nicholas Jolley - Leibniz and Locke on Essences | |
| A reaction: Having recently read Locke, I felt that his real commitment was to the second one. He keeps coming back to the thought that there are real essences out there. It is only his empirical commitment that makes him feel the quest is hopeless. |
| 12547 | We know five properties of gold, but cannot use four of them to predict the fifth one [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Though we see the yellow, and upon trial find the weight, malleableness, fusibility and fixedness of gold, yet because no one of these has evident dependence or necessary connexion with the other, we cannot know if four are there, the fifth will be also. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.03.14) | |
| A reaction: Thus it is that knowledge of necessary properties cannot lead us to knowledge of essence, because explanatory dependence is in the opposite direction. The point of knowing essences is to gain increased powers of prediction. |
| 12503 | Identity means that the idea of a thing remains the same over time [Locke] |
| Full Idea: In this consists identity, when the ideas a thing is attributed to vary not at all from what they were at that moment, wherein we consider their former existence, and to which we compare the present. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.24.01) | |
| A reaction: Since we recognise that we might, in odd circumstances, have the identical idea while the object has been swapped, this is wrong. It sounds like the identity of indiscernibles. Identity is a concept applied to reality, not to ideas. |
| 9663 | A thing 'perdures' if it has separate temporal parts, and 'endures' if it is wholly present at different times [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Something 'perdures' iff it persists by having different temporal parts, or stages, at different times, though no one part of it is wholly present at more than one time; whereas it 'endures' iff it persists by being wholly present at more than one time. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 4.2) | |
| A reaction: Only a philosopher would come up with a concept like perdurance. I'm thinking about this one, and will get back to you in a later-numbered idea... He compares perdurance to the way a road persists through space. |
| 14737 | Properties cannot be relations to times, if there are temporary properties which are intrinsic [Lewis, by Sider] |
| Full Idea: The problem of 'temporary intrinsics' is that in one model we think of properties as relations to times (I am 'bent' relative to now), but change sometime involves intrinsic properties. I am just plain bent, not bent with respect to something else. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], p.202-4) by Theodore Sider - Four Dimensionalism | |
| A reaction: [I've compressed Sider's summary] The question of whether intrinsic properties endure over time runs in parallel with the question of whether objects endure over time, and the two issues cannot be separated. |
| 9664 | Endurance is the wrong account, because things change intrinsic properties like shape [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The principal and decisive objection to endurance, as an account of the persistence of ordinary things, is the problem of temporary intrinsics. Persisting things change their intrinsic properties, such as their shape. My own shape keeps changing. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 4.2) | |
| A reaction: Presumably if something was going to endure through time it would need a shape. If it has no particular shape, it lacks identity? Lewis discusses the problem at length. Why is a precise shape essential to anything? |
| 9665 | There are three responses to the problem that intrinsic shapes do not endure [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The problem for the endurance view of temporary intrinsic properties like shape is met be either saying shape is a disguised relational property, or only present properties are intrinsic, or the shapes belong to different things (perdurance). | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 4.2) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] It is certainly implausible to deny that shape is a feature of all physical objects. Or it appears to be. Shapes are hard to pin down at the quantum level. How do you sharply divide moments for the perdurance view? ... |
| 12505 | One thing cannot have two beginnings of existence, nor two things one beginning [Locke] |
| Full Idea: One thing cannot have two beginnings of existence, nor two things one beginning. …That therefore that had one beginning is the same thing, and that which had a different beginning in time and place from that, is not the same but divers. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.01) | |
| A reaction: Chris Hughes has a nice example of a bicycle which is dismantled, parts are swapped with another, then the originals collected up and reassembled, which appears to give the bike two beginnings. This is necessity of origin, not essentiality. |
| 19280 | I can ask questions which create a context in which origin ceases to be essential [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: If I ask how things would be if Saul Kripke had come from no sperm and egg, but was brought by a stork, that makes sense. I create a context that makes my question make sense, which is a context that makes origin not to be essential. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 4.5) | |
| A reaction: I'm not clear why delivery by a stork doesn't just count as a different origin, and hence it turns out to be essential to Kripke. If Kripke were a necessary being (and he's a good candidate), then he would have no origin. |
| 16795 | Same person, man or substance are different identities, belonging to different ideas [Locke] |
| Full Idea: It is one thing to be the same substance, another the same man, and a third the same person, if Person, Man and Substance are three names standing for three different ideas; for such as is the idea belonging to the name, such must be the identity. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.07) | |
| A reaction: It might be better to say that two things can only be 'the same' in some respect. You can say 'in some respects they are the same', without citing the respects. |
| 12504 | Two things can't occupy one place and time, which leads us to the idea of self-identity [Locke] |
| Full Idea: We don't conceive it possible that two things of the same kind should exist in the same place and time...When, therefore, we demand whether any thing be the same or no, it refers to something that existed at a time and place, and was the same with itself. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.01) | |
| A reaction: I find the notion of 'self-identity' puzzling. I've always taken it to be a logicians' idea, but Locke seems to arrive at it by looking for whatever is identical with some original object, and the floating relation having to hook back onto itself. |
| 15968 | Identity is simple - absolutely everything is self-identical, and nothing is identical to another thing [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Identity is utterly simple and unproblematic. Everything is identical to itself; nothing is ever identical to anything except itself. There is never any problem about what makes something identical to itself; nothing can ever fail to be. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 4.1) | |
| A reaction: I have great problems with expressing this concept as a thing being 'identical to itself'. I will always say that it 'has an identity'. But then it is problematical, because what constitutes an identity? When do dispersing clouds lose it? |
| 15969 | Two things can never be identical, so there is no problem [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: There is never any problem about what makes two things identical; two things can never be identical. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 4.1) | |
| A reaction: This expresses Lewis's preference for usage of the word 'identity', rather than a simple solution. It pays no attention to type-identity, which is an obvious phenomenon. In some sense, it is just obvious that two electrons are 'identical'. |
| 16079 | De re modal predicates are ambiguous [Lewis, by Rudder Baker] |
| Full Idea: Lewis is perhaps the most prominent proponent of the view that de re modal predicates are ambiguous. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Survival and Identity, with postscript [1983]) by Lynne Rudder Baker - Why Constitution is not Identity n25 |
| 11978 | Causal necessities hold in all worlds compatible with the laws of nature [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Just as a sentence is necessary if it holds in all worlds, so it is causally necessary if it holds in all worlds compatible with the laws of nature. | |
| From: David Lewis (Counterpart theory and Quant. Modal Logic [1968], V) | |
| A reaction: I don't believe in the so-called 'laws of nature', so I'm not buying that. Is there no distinction in Lewis's view between those sentences which must hold, and those which happen to hold universally? |
| 15560 | We can explain a chance event, but can never show why some other outcome did not occur [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I think we are right to explain chance events, yet we are right also to deny that we can ever explain why a chance process yields one outcome rather than another. We cannot explain why one event happened rather than the other. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causal Explanation [1986], VI) | |
| A reaction: This misses out an investigation which slowly reveals that a 'chance' event wasn't so chancey after all. Failure to explain confirms chance, so the judgement of chance shouldn't block attempts to explain. |
| 14283 | A conditional probability does not measure the probability of the truth of any proposition [Lewis, by Edgington] |
| Full Idea: Lewis was first to prove this remarkable result: there is no proposition A*B such that, in all probability distributions, p(A*B) = pA(B) [second A a subscript]. A conditional probability does not measure the probability of the truth of any proposition. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Probabilities of Conditionals [1976]) by Dorothy Edgington - Conditionals (Stanf) 3.1 | |
| A reaction: The equation says the probability of the combination of A and B is not always the same as the probability of B given A. Bennett refers to this as 'The Equation' in the theory of conditionals. Edgington says a conditional is a supposition and a judgement. |
| 14361 | Lewis says indicative conditionals are truth-functional [Lewis, by Jackson] |
| Full Idea: Unlike Stalnaker, Lewis holds that indicative conditionals have the truth conditions of material conditionals. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Counterfactuals [1973]) by Frank Jackson - Conditionals 'Further' | |
| A reaction: Thus Lewis only uses the possible worlds account for subjunctive conditionals, where Stalnaker uses it for both. Lewis is defending the truth-functional account for the indicative conditionals. |
| 8434 | In good counterfactuals the consequent holds in world like ours except that the antecedent is true [Lewis, by Horwich] |
| Full Idea: According to Lewis, a counterfactual holds when the consequent is true in possible worlds very like our own except for the fact that the antecedent is true. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Counterfactuals [1973]) by Paul Horwich - Lewis's Programme p.213 | |
| A reaction: Presumably the world being very like our own would make it unlikely that there would be anything else to cause the consequent, apart from the counterfactual antecedent. |
| 8425 | For true counterfactuals, both antecedent and consequent true is closest to actuality [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A counterfactual is non-vacuously true iff it takes less of a departure from actuality to make the consequent true along with the antecedent than it does to make the antecedent true without the consequent. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causation [1973], p.197) | |
| A reaction: Almost every theory proposed by Lewis hangs on the meaning of the word 'close', as used here. If you visited twenty Earth-like worlds (watch Startrek?), it would be a struggle to decide their closeness to ours in rank order. |
| 15462 | Backtracking counterfactuals go from supposed events to their required causal antecedents [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: 'Backtracking' counterfactual reasoning runs from a counterfactually supposed event to the causal antecedents it would have to have had. | |
| From: David Lewis (Finkish dispositions [1997], I) | |
| A reaction: Why not call it a 'transcendental' counterfactual? Presumably you go thisworld>> counterfactualevent>> worldneededtocauseit. It conjures up two possible worlds instead of one. |
| 12553 | Some of our ideas contain relations which we cannot conceive to be absent [Locke] |
| Full Idea: In some of our ideas there are certain relations, habitudes, and connexions, so visibly included in the nature of the ideas themselves, that we cannot conceive them separable from them, by any power whatsoever. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.03.29) | |
| A reaction: This is the conceptual version of a priori necessity. The question then becomes whether this necessity can be traced back to reality, or merely to conventions which created the ideas in the first place. Analytic philosophy likes this idea. |
| 9660 | The impossible can be imagined as long as it is a bit vague [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Imaginability is a poor criterion of possibility. We can imagine the impossible provided we do not imagine it in perfect detail and all the time. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.8) | |
| A reaction: In general I agree, but Williamson nicely opposes this view. The fact is that we derive most of our understanding of what is possible from imagination. We just have to realise that we can get it wrong, and so must attend to detail. |
| 9669 | There are no free-floating possibilia; they have mates in a world, giving them extrinsic properties [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: There are no free-floating possibilia. Every possibility is part of a world - exactly one world - and thus comes surrounded by worldmates, and fully equipped with extrinsic properties in virtue of its relations to them. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 4.4) | |
| A reaction: This is a key claim in the possible worlds understanding of modality, contrary to the more common sense and normal language claim that a possibility is an isolated thing. |
| 16133 | Possible worlds can contain contradictions if such worlds are seen as fictions [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: If worlds were like stories or story-tellers, there would indeed be room for worlds according to which contradictions are true. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.2 n3) | |
| A reaction: Most existing fictions contain tiny contradictions, but we might ask whether that thereby disqualifies them from depicting genuinely 'possible' worlds. |
| 16132 | On mountains or in worlds, reporting contradictions is contradictory, so no such truths can be reported [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: To tell the alleged truth about contradictory things that happen on a mountain is just contradicting yourself, but you can't tell the truth by contradicting yourself. There is no mountain where contradictions are true, and impossible worlds are no better. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.2 n3) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] He says this works for any 'restricted' domain like a mountain or a real world, but that it wouldn't apply in an unrestricted fictional world. |
| 16283 | For me, all worlds are equal, with each being actual relative to itself [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: For me, all the worlds are on an equal footing in that each is actual relative to itself and none is actual relative to any other. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 3.1) | |
| A reaction: Lewis says the world we call 'actual' is simply a matter of how our indexicals refer. That sounds the wrong way round to me (as so often with Lewis). |
| 12255 | For Lewis there is no real possibility, since all possibilities are actual [Oderberg on Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Lewis-style modal realism eliminates all real possibility since on his account everything is actual relative to its own world. | |
| From: comment on David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986]) by David S. Oderberg - Real Essentialism 6.2 | |
| A reaction: Since it is possible for me to be in New York and in Chicago, but not both at once, his possibilities have to be kept apart, even though they are actual. I expect my visit to Chicago to remain as only a possibility. |
| 9219 | Lewis posits possible worlds just as Quine says that physics needs numbers and sets [Lewis, by Sider] |
| Full Idea: Lewis's argument for possible worlds parallels Quine's for the existence of sets: our best overall empirical theory, mathematical physics, quantifies over real numbers, so we have reason to posit real numbers, or the sets to which they may be reduced. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986]) by Theodore Sider - Reductive Theories of Modality 3.6 | |
| A reaction: They both strike me as suspect. Indeed, the extreme implausibility of Lewis's conclusion throws doubt on Quine's original strategy. I'm happy to work with sets and possible worlds, and only worry about ontological commitment at a later stage. |
| 15022 | If possible worlds really exist, then they are part of actuality [Sider on Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The familiar complaint against Lewis is that if his worlds existed, they'd be part of actuality. | |
| From: comment on David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986]) by Theodore Sider - Writing the Book of the World 11.5 | |
| A reaction: Sider presents that as rather superficial, but it sounds a pretty good objection to me. Lewis would note that only our world has the indexical features which he says pick out actuality. Real possible worlds might lack indexical features? |
| 10469 | A world is a maximal mereological sum of spatiotemporally interrelated things [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A world is a maximal mereological sum of spatiotemporally interrelated things. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.6) | |
| A reaction: (I wonder what Lewis's account of space was?) A mereological sum is "the least inclusive thing that includes all the parts" (p.69). It is maximal when all 'worldmates' are parts. But then 'worldmates' are defined as parts, so it threatens circularity. |
| 15790 | Lewis can't know possible worlds without first knowing what is possible or impossible [Lycan on Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Lewis's knowledge of what possible worlds there are and of other general truths about worlds is posterior, not prior, to his knowledge of what things are possible and what things are impossible. | |
| From: comment on David Lewis (Possible Worlds [1973]) by William Lycan - The Trouble with Possible Worlds 07 | |
| A reaction: This elementary objection seems to me to destroy any attempt to explain modality in terms of possible worlds. It is a semantics for modal statements, but that doesn't make it an ontology. To assess possibilities, study actuality. |
| 18415 | The actual world is just the world you are in [Lewis, by Cappelen/Dever] |
| Full Idea: Lewis equates knowing which world is actual with knowing which world one is in. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Attitudes De Dicto and De Se [1979]) by Cappelen,H/Dever,Josh - The Inessential Indexical 05.1 | |
| A reaction: [This view is not, of course, Actualism, but an alternative treatment of actuality, within a multitude of possibilities]. |
| 15791 | What are the ontological grounds for grouping possibilia into worlds? [Lycan on Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Lewis must seek some ontological ground for the grouping of possibilia into disjoint worlds. | |
| From: comment on David Lewis (Possible Worlds [1973]) by William Lycan - The Trouble with Possible Worlds 07 | |
| A reaction: I do love people like Lycan who ask the simple commonsense questions about these highly sophisticated systems that students of philosophy are required to study. If a proposition is a 'set of worlds', understanding a proposition is beyond me. |
| 16441 | Lewis rejects actualism because he identifies properties with sets [Lewis, by Stalnaker] |
| Full Idea: It is the identification of properties with sets that rules out, for Lewis, an actualist account of possible worlds. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986]) by Robert C. Stalnaker - Mere Possibilities 1.1 | |
| A reaction: I suppose the sets which are the properties have to include all the possible red things as well as the actual one. This escapes the renate/cordate problem. |
| 16282 | Ersatzers say we have one world, and abstract representations of how it might have been [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The ersatzers say that instead of an incredible plurality of concrete worlds, we can have one world only, and countless abstract entities representing ways that this world might have been. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 3.1) | |
| A reaction: Put me down as an ersatzer. They seem to be the same as Actualists. Are worlds other possible worlds, or ways 'this world might have been'? Not the same. Does actuality constrain what is possible? (Barcan formula?) |
| 16284 | Ersatz worlds represent either through language, or by models, or magically [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I distinguish three principal ways ersatz worlds represent: linguistic, in which they are like stories or theories; pictorial, like pictures or isomorphic scale models; or magical, in which it is just their nature to represent. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 3.1) | |
| A reaction: I think I incline to the 'model' view. The linguistic version means animals can't assess possibilities. I take modelling to be basic to what a mind is, and what a mind is for. |
| 16286 | Linguistic possible worlds need a complete supply of unique names for each thing [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: There are two difficulties with Carnap's taking possible worlds as linguistic. Everything must have a name, or our state-descriptions will be silent about nameless things, and nothing may have two names, or we may affirm and deny a predicate of one thing. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 3.2) | |
| A reaction: The idea of possible worlds as linguistic has no appeal for me, so this problem doesn't surprise or bother me, but it sounds fairly terminal for the project. |
| 16287 | Maximal consistency for a world seems a modal distinction, concerning what could be true together [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: An ersatz world must be maximally consistent (hence destroyed by an additional sentences), …but that is prima facie a modal distinction: a set of sentences is consistent iff those sentences, as interpreted, could all be true together. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 3.2) | |
| A reaction: This is indicative of Lewis's motivation for his project, which is to eliminate modal facts from the world. Only a vast multitude of non-modal concrete worlds can satisfy all the contraints. Cf many-worlds quantum mechanics for non-locality. |
| 9662 | Linguistic possible worlds have problems of inconsistencies, no indiscernibles, and vocabulary [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Linguistic representations of possible worlds have three problems: some descriptions are inconsistent (which worlds cannot be); we cannot have indiscernible descriptions (though some worlds might be so); and descriptions are limited by vocabulary. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 3.2) | |
| A reaction: Lewis is wonderful at getting problems clearly on the table. I take the idea of possible worlds as linguistic entities to be a non-starter, because (as usual) animals do it too, when they think of possibilities, which even the dimmest ones must do. |
| 7690 | If sets exist, then defining worlds as proposition sets implies an odd distinction between existing and actual [Jacquette on Lewis] |
| Full Idea: If sets exist, then the conventional concept of a logically possible world as a proposition set requires a counterintuitive distinction between existence and actuality, between what exists and what is actual. | |
| From: comment on David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986]) by Dale Jacquette - Ontology Ch.2 | |
| A reaction: This pinpoints the obvious difficulty that most people have with Lewis's claim that possible worlds exist. Russell's claim that universals 'subsist' (Idea 5409) is a similar attempt to have two different sorts of existence in your ontology. |
| 11979 | It doesn't take the whole of a possible Humphrey to win the election [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Even if Humphrey is a modal continuant, it doesn't take the whole of him to do such things as winning. | |
| From: David Lewis (Counterpart theory and Quant. Modal Logic [1968], Post B) | |
| A reaction: This responds to Kripke's famous example, that people only care about what happens to themselves, and not to some 'counterpart' of themselves. |
| 15530 | A logically determinate name names the same thing in every possible world [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A logically determinate name is one which names the same thing in every possible world. | |
| From: David Lewis (How to Define Theoretical Terms [1970], III) | |
| A reaction: This appears to be rigid designation, before Kripke introduced the new word. |
| 16994 | Counterpart theory is bizarre, as no one cares what happens to a mere counterpart [Kripke on Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Probably Humphrey could not care less whether someone else, no matter how much resembling him, would have been victorious in another possible world. Thus Lewis's view seems even more bizarre that the usual transworld identification it replaces. | |
| From: comment on David Lewis (Counterpart theory and Quant. Modal Logic [1968]) by Saul A. Kripke - Naming and Necessity notes and addenda note 13 | |
| A reaction: I begin to see this as a devastating reply to a theory I previously found quite congenial. |
| 11974 | Counterparts are not the original thing, but resemble it more than other things do [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Your counterparts resemble you closely in content and context in important respects. They resemble you more closely than do the other things in their worlds. But they are not really you. | |
| From: David Lewis (Counterpart theory and Quant. Modal Logic [1968], I) | |
| A reaction: It is a dilemma. If my counterpart were exactly me, I couldn't contemplate possibly losing a leg, or my sanity. But if my counterpart isn't exactly me, then I don't have much interest in its fate. Only essences can save us here. Cf. me tomorrow. |
| 11975 | If the closest resembler to you is in fact quite unlike you, then you have no counterpart [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: If whatever thing in world w6 it is that resembles you more closely than anything else in w6 is nevertheless quite unlike you; nothing in w6 resembles you at all closely. If so, you have no counterpart in w6. | |
| From: David Lewis (Counterpart theory and Quant. Modal Logic [1968], I) | |
| A reaction: This is the nub, because the whole theory rests on deciding whether two things resemble sufficiently 'closely'. But then we need a criterion of closeness, so we must start talking about which properties matter. Essences loom. |
| 11977 | Essential attributes are those shared with all the counterparts [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: An essential attribute of something is an attribute it shares with all its counterparts. | |
| From: David Lewis (Counterpart theory and Quant. Modal Logic [1968], III) | |
| A reaction: I don't like this. It ties essence entirely to identity, but I think essence precedes identity. Essence is a nexus of causal and explanatory powers which bestows an identity on each thing. But essence might be unstable, and identity with it. |
| 14404 | The counterpart relation is sortal-relative, so objects need not be a certain way [Lewis, by Merricks] |
| Full Idea: Lewis takes the counterpart relation to be sortal-relative, so he (no less than Quine) denies that objects, qua existing, are necessarily a certain way. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986]) by Trenton Merricks - Truth and Ontology 5.III n10 | |
| A reaction: Does this mean that there could be two different versions of the same possible world (certainly not!), or that worlds are entirely created by our concepts rather than by what is actually possible. |
| 5440 | A counterpart in a possible world is sufficiently similar, and more similar than anything else [Lewis, by Mautner] |
| Full Idea: 'Jack could have been taller' implies a different Jack in a different world, so Lewis defines a counterpart in a possible world as an individual sufficiently similar to Jack, and more similar to Jack than anything else in that world. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986]) by Thomas Mautner - Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy p.115 | |
| A reaction: If we say something like "I could have been twins" or "I could have been a genius" in another world, it would need an odd concept of my personal identity for it to remain identical in those counterfactual situations. Lewis has a point. |
| 5441 | Why should statements about what my 'counterpart' could have done interest me? [Mautner on Lewis] |
| Full Idea: If I only have counterparts in possible worlds who are not identical to me, statements about what I could have done will seem irrelevant to me, because they will be about someone else. | |
| From: comment on David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986]) by Thomas Mautner - Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy p.115 | |
| A reaction: We might rephrase the statement as "I could have been the person who did x". Presumably my counterpart is not just any stranger, but someone I could have been. "I could have been a brick" - now that seems irrelevant to me! |
| 16291 | In counterpart theory 'Humphrey' doesn't name one being, but a mereological sum of many beings [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: For the counterpart theorist, the trick is to say that 'Humphrey' names not the Humphrey of our world, and not the Humphrey of another, but rather the trans-world individual who is the mereological sum of all those local Humphreys. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 4.1) | |
| A reaction: On Lewis's perdurantism Humphrey is a 'spacetime worm' across his lifetime. Now we are adding all the possible Humphreys to the sum. I'm losing track of Humphrey's shape. |
| 11903 | Extreme haecceitists could say I might have been a poached egg, but it is too remote to consider [Lewis, by Mackie,P] |
| Full Idea: Lewis's strategy for defending extreme haecceitism is that supposed impossibilities (that I might have been a poached egg) could be reconstrued as genuine possibilities that are so remote from reality that they are ignored. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 239-) by Penelope Mackie - How Things Might Have Been 9.3 | |
| A reaction: Not a promising route. Wiggins asks: if you think I could have been a poached egg, start by defining more precisely this 'I' to which we are referring. The definition will blatantly exclude any possibility of my poachedegghood. |
| 15129 | Haecceitism implies de re differences but qualitative identity [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: If two worlds differ in what they represent de re concerning some individual, but do not differ qualitatively in any way, I shall call that a haecceitist difference. Haecceitism, then, says there are at least some haecceitist differences between worlds. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 4.4) | |
| A reaction: Lewis bases this view on Kaplan. My brief summary of this is that 'identity may be hidden'. If all electrons are different, what distinguishes them? |
| 9670 | Extreme haecceitism says you might possibly be a poached egg [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The most extreme version of haecceitism says that anything could possibly have any qualitative character; for instance, there is a world according to which you are a poached egg. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 4.4) | |
| A reaction: Presumably a plausible haecceitist view would have to be combined with essentialism, given that the possibility that I might be a poached egg is beyond my intuitive grasp. |
| 12544 | Our knowledge falls short of the extent of our own ideas [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The extent of our knowledge comes not only short of the reality of things, but even of the extent of our own ideas. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.03.06) | |
| A reaction: The point is that we may be unable to find the links which make the connections. Which implies that there are real connections waiting to be found. We could call this 'conceptual realism'. A job for philosophers! |
| 16392 | A content is a property, and believing it is self-ascribing that property [Lewis, by Recanati] |
| Full Idea: For Lewis, a belief mode is analysed by saying that to believe a content (analysed as a property) is for the subject of thought to 'self-ascribe' that property. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Attitudes De Dicto and De Se [1979]) by François Recanati - Mental Files 18.3 | |
| A reaction: Lewis is weird. I would have thought you only self-ascribe the 'property' when you find yourself believing it. Lewis seems desperate to eliminate mental language. Belief can be a primitive concept without being primitive in ontology. |
| 12899 | The timid student has knowledge without belief, lacking confidence in their correct answer [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I allow knowledge without belief, as in the case of the timid student who knows the answer but has no confidence that he has it right, and so does not believe what he knows. | |
| From: David Lewis (Elusive Knowledge [1996], p.429) | |
| A reaction: [He cites Woozley 1953 for the timid student] I don't accept this example (since my views on knowledge are rather traditional, I find). Why would the student give that answer if they didn't believe it? Sustained timid correctness never happens. |
| 12574 | When two ideas agree in my mind, I cannot refuse to see and know it [Locke] |
| Full Idea: When the agreement of any two ideas appears to our minds, I can no more refuse to perceive, no more avoid knowing it, than I can avoid seeing those objects which I turn my eyes to. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.20.16) | |
| A reaction: Note that he is not just saying that we cannot resist believing what becomes evident to us, but he actually asserts that we cannot avoid 'knowing' it. This seems to imply that knowledge may be more basic than belief (as Williamson and Hossack argue). |
| 15995 | The greatest certainty is knowing our own ideas, and that two ideas are different [Locke] |
| Full Idea: A man cannot conceive himself capable of a greater certainty, than to know that any idea in his mind is such as he perceives it to be; and that two ideas wherein he perceives a difference, are different, and not precisely the same. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.02.01) | |
| A reaction: That leaves open the question of what you know when you know your ideas. Do you fully know the contents? The contingent truths expressed by some of them? Or just their meanings? |
| 12562 | General certainty is only found in ideas [Locke] |
| Full Idea: General certainty is never to be found but in our ideas. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.06.16) | |
| A reaction: This is a fairly standard empirical view of such things. The obvious opposition to it might be Moore's 'hand' example (Idea 6349), if we ask, which is more certain, this hand I hold up, or this complex proof in mathematics? |
| 15994 | If it is knowledge, it is certain; if it isn't certain, it isn't knowledge [Locke] |
| Full Idea: What reaches to knowledge, I think may be called certainty; and what comes short of certainty, I think cannot be knowledge. | |
| From: John Locke (Letters to Edward Stillingfleet [1695], Letter 2), quoted by Simon Blackburn - Quasi-Realism no Fictionalism | |
| A reaction: I much prefer that fallibilist approach offered by the pragmatists. Knowledge is well-supported belief which seems (and is agreed) to be true, but there is a small shadow of doubt hanging over all of it. |
| 12569 | Knowledge by senses is less certain than that by intuition or reason, but it is still knowledge [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The notice we have by our senses of the existing of things without us, thought it be no altogether so certain as our intuitive knowledge or the deductions of our reason, ..yet it is an assurance that deserves the name of knowledge. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.11.03) | |
| A reaction: This is a clear instance of an acceptance of fallibilism. So one would hope, I think, from an orthodox empiricist philosopher, especially a representative realist like Locke, who as lots of areas where doubts can creep in. |
| 12897 | To say S knows P, but cannot eliminate not-P, sounds like a contradiction [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: If you claim that S knows that P, and yet grant that S cannot eliminate a certain possibility of not-P, it certainly seems as if you have granted that S does not after all know that P. To speak of fallible knowledge just sounds contradictory. | |
| From: David Lewis (Elusive Knowledge [1996], p.419) | |
| A reaction: Starting from this point, fallibilism seems to be a rather bold move. The only sensible response seems to be to relax the requirement that not-P must be eliminable. Best: in one epistemic context P, in another not-P. |
| 12564 | I am as certain of the thing doubting, as I am of the doubt [Locke] |
| Full Idea: If I know I doubt, I have as certain a perception of the existence of the thing doubting, as of that thought which I call doubt. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.09.03) | |
| A reaction: The challenge to this Lockean assertion of the Cogito is what he means by a 'thing', and what grounds he has for asserting the existence of the 'thing', as opposed to some vague assertion about whatever makes doubting possible. |
| 7570 | Innate ideas are trivial (if they are just potentials) or absurd (if they claim infants know a lot) [Locke, by Jolley] |
| Full Idea: Locke says the doctrine of innate ideas is either reduced to triviality (that we have the potential to acquire knowledge and concepts, which makes all ideas innate), or to the absurd thesis that new-born children know logic, maths and metaphysics. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 1) by Nicholas Jolley - Leibniz Ch.4 | |
| A reaction: A very effective attack. The defence would have to be the claim that there is no way for certain ideas to have entered the mind (because they are too basic, or too abstract, or too huge), so they could only arise from within the mind. |
| 12472 | If the only test of innateness is knowing, then all of our knowledge is innate [Locke] |
| Full Idea: If the capacity of knowing be the natural Impression contended for, all the Truths a man ever comes to know, will, by this Account, be, every one of them, innate. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 1.02.05) | |
| A reaction: It seems to be a nice empiricist's question, what experience involved in thinking an idea gives a hallmark that it is innate rather than acquired? Perhaps only 'I couldn't have thought of that myself', as Descartes says of several ideas. |
| 7709 | A proposition can't be in the mind if we aren't conscious of it [Locke] |
| Full Idea: No proposition can be said to be in the mind, which it never yet knew, which it was never yet conscious of. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 1.02.05) | |
| A reaction: This raises an interesting question. If we believe in the influence of the unconscious, we will have to talk of unconscious beliefs which affect our behaviour. We certainly all have beliefs of which we are not conscious. "Elvis had two feet". |
| 4018 | Innate ideas were followed up with innate doctrines, which stopped reasoning and made social control possible [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Once innate ideas were established, it was necessary for their followers to receive some doctrines as such, to put them off using their own reason, so that they might be more easily governed. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 1.03.25?), quoted by Charles Taylor - Sources of the Self §9.1 | |
| A reaction: Presumably anti-Catholic, though it sounds Marxist. It is hard to challenge innate ideas, but it is hard to challenge Hume's 'natural beliefs'. |
| 7723 | The senses first let in particular ideas, which furnish the empty cabinet [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The senses at first let in particular ideas, and furnish the yet empty cabinet. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 1.02.15) | |
| A reaction: A nice image of Locke's famous claim that the mind is a 'tabula rasa' (blank page). The obvious objection is that a totally empty cabinet would not organise or make sense of or respond to the sense experiences that entered it. Kant spelled this out. |
| 7507 | The mind is white paper, with no writing, or ideas [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Let us suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.01.02) | |
| A reaction: This is normally referred to as Locke's 'tabula rasa' idea, and is his denial of the existence of innate ideas. It is generally thought to be absurd, but note that he only 'supposes' it, presumably as a theoretical strategy, to investigate empiricism. |
| 12474 | The mind is a blank page, on which only experience can write [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Let us then suppose the Mind to be, as we say, white Paper, void of all characters, without any Ideas; How comes it to be furnished? ..To this I answer, in one word, from Experience. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.01.02) | |
| A reaction: The simple objection is that minds could make nothing of their experience if they were totally blank. But if we add principles of association, we might still say that there are no actual ideas imprinted in the original mind, only functions or faculties. |
| 12518 | The mind cannot produce simple ideas [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The mind has no power to produce any simple idea. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.31.02) | |
| A reaction: These must all come from experience, implying to common empirical view (spelled out better by Hume) that that a priori concerns only combinations of ideas which we already possess. The 'conceptual' notion of a priori is consistent with this. |
| 12478 | A 'quality' is a power to produce an idea in our minds [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The power to produce any idea in our mind I call 'quality' of the subject wherein that power is. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.08.08) | |
| A reaction: This strikes me as much the most accurate way to think of properties, but then I accept Locke's distinction between primary and secondary properties. Red is a property of brains, not of tomatoes. Tomatoes have power to cause this property. |
| 15509 | Some say qualities are parts of things - as repeatable universals, or as particulars [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Some philosophers propose that things have their qualities by having them as parts, either as repeatable universals (Goodman), or as particulars (Donald Williams). | |
| From: David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 2.1 n2) | |
| A reaction: He refers to 'qualities' rather than 'properties', presumably because this view makes them all intrinsic to the object. Is being 'handsome' a part of a person? |
| 12481 | Hands can report conflicting temperatures, but not conflicting shapes [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The same water may produce the idea of cold by one hand and of heat by the other; ...but figure never produces the idea of a square by one hand which has produced the idea of a globe by the other. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.08.21) | |
| A reaction: I find this to be a thoroughly convincing argument in favour of the primary/secondary distinction, despite the later objects of Berkeley, Hume and Kant. One might add colour blind people reporting differently from the rest of us. |
| 12546 | We can't know how primary and secondary qualities connect together [Locke] |
| Full Idea: There is no discoverable connection between any secondary quality, and those primary qualities that it depends on. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.03.12) | |
| A reaction: I take this to be an accurate account of the problem, and it pinpoints what may be the single most recalcitrant mystery facing human understanding - why do red things look RED? |
| 15989 | Colours, smells and tastes are ideas; the secondary qualities have no colour, smell or taste [Locke, by Alexander,P] |
| Full Idea: If I am right, colours, tastes, odours and sounds are not, for Locke secondary qualities but ideas; secondary qualities are colourless, tasteless, odourless and soundless textures of bodies. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by Peter Alexander - Ideas, Qualities and Corpuscles 8 | |
| A reaction: This the concise summary of Alexander's reading of Locke, and I find him wholly convincing. |
| 15971 | Secondary qualities are powers of complex primary qualities to produce sensations in us [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Such qualities, which are nothing in objects but powers to produce various sensations in us by their primary qualities i.e. by the bulk, figure, texture, and motion of their sensible parts, as colours, sounds, tastes etc. These I call secondary qualities. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.08.10) | |
| A reaction: Alexander emphasises that secondary qualities are in objects. It is the ideas (here 'sensations') which are in us. This quotation shows that secondary qualities are not identical with 'textures' (which are complex primary qualities), but are 'powers'. |
| 6725 | Locke believes matter is an inert, senseless substance, with extension, figure and motion [Locke, by Berkeley] |
| Full Idea: Some thinkers (e.g. Locke) understand by matter an inert, senseless substance, in which extension, figure and motion do actually subsist. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by George Berkeley - The Principles of Human Knowledge §9 | |
| A reaction: Berkeley, of course, goes on to reject this. Personally I agree with Locke, because I am a realist, and I think the seventeenth century distinction between primary and secondary qualities is a key contribution to human understanding. |
| 15982 | Qualities are named as primary if they are needed for scientific explanation [Locke, by Alexander,P] |
| Full Idea: In Locke, the needs of scientific explanation are what determine which qualities are to be taken as primary. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by Peter Alexander - Ideas, Qualities and Corpuscles 6 | |
| A reaction: Not a sharp distinction, but interesting. It must concern 'objective' explanations to cut out the secondary qualities. |
| 12479 | Primary qualities produce simple ideas, such as solidity, extension, motion and number [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The original or 'primary' qualities of body produce simple ideas in us, viz. solidity, extension, figure, motion or rest, and number. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.08.09) | |
| A reaction: The tricky word here is 'simple', which clearly won't be enough on its own to distinguish primary from secondary qualities. Notice that there is a germ of an empirical theory of arithmetic in the word 'number'. |
| 12480 | Ideas of primary qualities resemble their objects, but those of secondary qualities don't [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The ideas of primary qualities of bodies are resemblances of them, and their pattern do really exist in the bodies themselves; but the ideas produced in us by secondary qualities have no resemblance to them at all. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.08.15) | |
| A reaction: I think this is exactly right. More that one sense can reinforce a primary quality, because there is a 'pattern' to be detected in various ways. That things look square is explained by their squareness; things looking red is just very weird. |
| 7049 | In Locke, the primary qualities are also powers [Locke, by Heil] |
| Full Idea: Readers of Locke have been wrong to imagine that primary qualities are not themselves powers. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.08.15) by John Heil - From an Ontological Point of View 17.2 | |
| A reaction: This is part of the move to connect Locke with modern essentialism about natural laws. If a disposition is a power, then clearly being hard or square will affect the dispositions, and hence be a power. Secondary qualities result from powers. |
| 15973 | In my view Locke's 'textures' are groups of corpuscles which are powers (rather than 'having' powers) [Locke, by Alexander,P] |
| Full Idea: I take the unorthodox view that Locke uses the word 'texture' for the pattern of corpuscles in a group and regards the power of a body to affect our senses or another body as identical with this textures, so that powers are intrinsic properties of bodies. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by Peter Alexander - Ideas, Qualities and Corpuscles 5.2 | |
| A reaction: The disagreement is whether the textures 'have' the powers (the orthodox view), or whether they 'are' the powers (Alexander's view). To counter Idea 15971, Alexander quotes Idea 15974. He says 'a secondary quality is a texture' (121). |
| 7050 | I suspect that Locke did not actually believe colours are 'in the mind' [Locke, by Heil] |
| Full Idea: I make no claim to being a Locke scholar, but I suspect that the position often associated with Locke - that colours are 'in the mind' - flies in the face of Locke's considered view. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.08.15) by John Heil - From an Ontological Point of View 17.3 | |
| A reaction: A glance at Locke gives the impression that he thought secondary qualities were really 'ideas', which would presumably be in the mind. Heil is hoping that Locke will agree with his own view. Further study will be required... |
| 15979 | Secondary qualities are simply the bare powers of an object [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Secondary qualities, as has been shown, are nothing but bare powers. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.23.08) | |
| A reaction: I'm not sure here whether 'bare' means 'simple' or 'unconcealed' - probably the latter. This supports Alexander's claim that the secondary qualities are identical to the 'textures' of the object. They certainly aren't in the mind. |
| 12482 | Molyneux's Question: could a blind man distinguish cube from sphere, if he regained his sight? [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Mr Molyneux's Question: a blind man, taught by touch to distinguish between a cube and a sphere of the same metal and same bigness. Suppose the cube and sphere placed on a table, and the man made to see - could he distinguish them? | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.09.08) | |
| A reaction: Both Molyneux and Locke agree that the answer is 'no', because he won't yet have learned to associate the new experiences with the old shapes. [Gareth Evans wrote on this question] |
| 7724 | All the ideas written on the white paper of the mind can only come from one place - experience [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Let us suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas. How comes it to be furnished? Whence has it all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, from Experience. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.01.02) | |
| A reaction: In the face of Kant's wonderfully rich account of the mind, this simple empiricism seems to be horribly naďve, but it could be defended by saying that all the other paraphernalia of the mind (associations, categories etc) are not in any way ideas. |
| 12527 | Some ideas connect together naturally, while others connect by chance or custom [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Some of our ideas have a natural correspondence and connexion one with another. ...Besides this there is another connexion of ideas wholly owing to chance or custom. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.33.05) | |
| A reaction: This strikes me as a more promising account of associations that the one offered by Hume, since Locke distinguishes the associations that seem somehow right and natural from those that seem merely conventional. |
| 12555 | The constant link between whiteness and things that produce it is the basis of our knowledge [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The idea of whiteness or bitterness, as it is in the mind, exactly answering that power which is in any body to produce it, has all the real conformity it can, or ought to have, with things without us. This conformity is sufficient for real knowledge. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.04.05) | |
| A reaction: I take this to say that consistent covariation with certain things in the world is the best criterion we can find for our knowledge of secondary, and hence primary, qualities. Why they two covary is beyond our ken. Sounds right. |
| 12542 | Knowledge is just the connection or disagreement of our ideas [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Knowledge seems to me to be nothing but the perception of the connexion and agreement, or disagreement and repugnancy of any of our ideas. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.01.02) |
| 16637 | The absolute boundaries of our thought are the ideas we get from senses and the mind [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The simple ideas we receive from sensation and reflection are the boundaries of our thoughts; beyond which the mind, whatever efforts it would make, is not able to advance one jot. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.23.29), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 09.3 | |
| A reaction: My view is that this is wrong, simply because it takes no account of inference to the best explanation. We reach the boundaries of experience, and then we think about it, and penetrate beyond. His 'reflection' doesn't seem to mean that. |
| 2793 | It is unclear how identity, equality, perfection, God, power and cause derive from experience [Locke, by Dancy,J] |
| Full Idea: Locke tried to show how all ideas were derived from experience by examining cases, but it was an uphill struggle; difficult cases include the ideas of identity, equality, perfection, God, power and cause. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by Jonathan Dancy - Intro to Contemporary Epistemology 14.2 |
| 12543 | Intuition gives us direct and certain knowledge of what is obvious [Locke] |
| Full Idea: There is intuitive knowledge when the mind perceives the truth as the eye doth light (white is not black, the circle is not a triangle). This knowledge is the clearest and most certain...on this depends the certainty and evidence of all knowledge. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.02.01) | |
| A reaction: Locke is different because he doesn't just talk of intuition, but of intuitive 'knowledge'. He has the standard problems of discriminating between good and bad intuitions, weak and strong, yours versus mine. Compare Russell's 'knowledge by acquaintance'. |
| 19517 | Believing without a reason may just be love of your own fantasies [Locke] |
| Full Idea: He that believes, without having any reason for believing, may be in love with his own fancies. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.17.24) | |
| A reaction: This comes close to Clifford's Principle, though he demands 'evidence', rather than a reason. Of course, the supposed 'reason' may be just as much of a fantasy as the belief! |
| 12898 | Justification is neither sufficient nor necessary for knowledge [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I don't agree that the mark of knowledge is justification, first because justification isn't sufficient - your true opinion that you will lose the lottery isn't knowledge, whatever the odds; and also not necessary - for what supports perception or memory? | |
| From: David Lewis (Elusive Knowledge [1996]) | |
| A reaction: I don't think I agree. The point about the lottery is that an overwhelming reason will never get you to knowing that you won't win. But good reasons are coherent, not statistical. If perceptions are dubious, justification must be available. |
| 15977 | Facts beyond immediate experience are assessed by agreement with known truths and observations [Locke] |
| Full Idea: What comes not within the scrutiny of the human senses ...can appear more or less probable only as they more or less agree to truths that are established in the our minds, and as they hold proportion to other parts of our knowledge and observation. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.16.12) | |
| A reaction: This remark strikes me as an excellent attempt to get at what we mean by coherence in justification. It is also, note, a good account of what we would count as a best explanation. |
| 2555 | For Locke knowledge relates to objects, not to propositions [Locke, by Rorty] |
| Full Idea: Locke didn't think of knowledge as true justified belief. …He considered "knowledge of" as prior to "knowledge that", and knowledge as a relation between persons and objects rather than persons and propositions. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by Richard Rorty - Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature 3.2 | |
| A reaction: This seems pretty close to Russell's 'knowledge by acquaintance'. You'd be a in a stronger position to build on this sort of thing if you were a direct realist about perception. |
| 16279 | General causal theories of knowledge are refuted by mathematics [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Causal accounts of knowledge are all very well in their place, but if they are put forward as general theories, then mathematics refutes them. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 2.4) | |
| A reaction: You might have some sort of notion of an abstraction from causation which mimicked it in the mathematics case. Lots of things seem to be 'forced' in mathematics. Call it 'ersatz causation'. Necessities are enforcers. |
| 12895 | Knowing is context-sensitive because the domain of quantification varies [Lewis, by Cohen,S] |
| Full Idea: The context-sensitivity of 'knows' is a function of contextual restrictions on the domain of quantification. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Elusive Knowledge [1996]) by Stewart Cohen - Contextualism Defended p.68 | |
| A reaction: I think the shifting 'domain of quantification' is one of the most interesting features of ordinary talk. Or, more plainly. 'what are you actually talking about?' is the key question in any fruitful dialogue. Sophisticated speakers tacitly shift domain. |
| 19562 | We have knowledge if alternatives are eliminated, but appropriate alternatives depend on context [Lewis, by Cohen,S] |
| Full Idea: S knows P if S's evidence eliminates every alternative. But the nature of the alternatives depends on context. So for Lewis, the context sensitivity of 'knows' is a function of contextual restrictions ln the domain of quantification. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Elusive Knowledge [1996]) by Stewart Cohen - Contextualism Defended (and reply) 1 | |
| A reaction: A typical modern attempt to 'regiment' a loose term like 'context'. That said, I like the idea. I'm struck by how the domain varies during a conversation (as in 'what we are talking about'). Domains standardly contain 'objects', though. |
| 10326 | Other men's opinions don't add to our knowledge - even when they are true [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The floating of other Mens Opinions in our brains makes us not one jot the more knowing, though they happen to be true. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 1.04.23) | |
| A reaction: Kusch calls this thought of Locke's 'notorious'. Locke is certainly expressing extreme individualism in epistemology, and Kusch's views are the exact opposite. I'm more with Kusch. |
| 3061 | Anaxarchus said that he was not even sure that he knew nothing [Anaxarchus, by Diog. Laertius] |
| Full Idea: Anaxarchus said that he was not even sure that he knew nothing. | |
| From: report of Anaxarchus (fragments/reports [c.340 BCE]) by Diogenes Laertius - Lives of Eminent Philosophers 09.10.1 |
| 6488 | Locke has no patience with scepticism [Locke, by Robinson,H] |
| Full Idea: Locke has no patience with scepticism. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by Howard Robinson - Perception 1.4 | |
| A reaction: Neither did Hume, and Aristotle laughs at extreme scepticism, and it never really bothers Plato. It could be argued that Descartes just regards it as a strategy for getting at foundations, rather than being something that kept him awake at night. |
| 15531 | The Ramsey sentence of a theory says that it has at least one realisation [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The Ramsey sentence of a theory says that it has at least one realisation. | |
| From: David Lewis (How to Define Theoretical Terms [1970], V) |
| 15528 | A Ramsey sentence just asserts that a theory can be realised, without saying by what [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: If we specify a theory with all of its terms, and then replace all of those terms with variables, we can then say that some n-tuples of entities can satisfy this formula. This Ramsey sentence then says the theory is realised, without specifying by what. | |
| From: David Lewis (How to Define Theoretical Terms [1970], II) | |
| A reaction: [I have compressed Lewis, and cut out the symbolism] |
| 15526 | There is a method for defining new scientific terms just using the terms we already understand [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I contend that there is a general method for defining newly introduced terms in a scientific theory, one which uses only the old terms we understood beforehand. | |
| From: David Lewis (How to Define Theoretical Terms [1970], Intro) | |
| A reaction: Lewis is game is to provide bridge laws for a reductive account of nature, without having to introduce something entirely new to achieve it. The idea of bridge laws in scientific theory is less in favour these days. |
| 15529 | It is better to have one realisation of a theory than many - but it may not always be possible [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A uniquely realised theory is, other things being equal, certainly more satisfactory than a multiply realised theory. We should insist on unique realisation as a standard of correctness unless it is a standard too high to be met. | |
| From: David Lewis (How to Define Theoretical Terms [1970], III) | |
| A reaction: The point is that rewriting a theory as Ramsey sentences just says there is at least one realisation, and so it doesn't meet the highest standards for scientific theories. The influence of set-theoretic model theory is obvious in this approach. |
| 9661 | Induction is just reasonable methods of inferring the unobserved from the observed [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I use the word 'induction' broadly, to cover all the methods we deem reasonable for forming beliefs about the unobserved parts of our world on the basis of experience with the observed parts. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 2.5) | |
| A reaction: Good. Attempts to be precise about it seem to be hopeless and invite paradoxes. Personally I just define it as 'learning from experience', because that makes what we do continuous with the behaviour of other sensible animals. |
| 9652 | To just expect unexamined emeralds to be grue would be totally unreasonable [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Some beliefs are just unreasonable in a strong sense. Think of the man who, for no special reason, expects unexamined emeralds to be grue. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.4) | |
| A reaction: This is a nice converse way of seeing the point that 'grue' is such an totally artificial predicate. I still say that the most illuminating point is that grue is not a colour, so seeing a grue thing is no confirmation at all. |
| 15559 | Does a good explanation produce understanding? That claim is just empty [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: It is said that a good explanation ought to produce understanding, ...but this just says that a good explanation produces possession of that which it provide, so this desideratum is empty. It adds nothing to our understanding of explanation. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causal Explanation [1986], V) | |
| A reaction: I am not convinced by this dismissal. If you are looking for a test of whether an explanation is good, the announcement that the participants feel they have achieved a good understanding sounds like success. |
| 15556 | Science may well pursue generalised explanation, rather than laws [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The pursuit of general explanations may be very much more widespread in science than the pursuit of general laws. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causal Explanation [1986], IV) | |
| A reaction: Nice. I increasingly think that the main target of all enquiry is ever-widening generality, with no need to aspire to universality. |
| 15558 | A good explanation is supposed to show that the event had to happen [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: It is said that a good explanation ought to show that the explanandum event had to happen, given the laws and circumstances. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causal Explanation [1986], V) | |
| A reaction: I cautiously go along with this view. Given that there are necessities in nature (a long story), we should aim to reveal them. There is no higher aspiration open to us than successful explanation. Lewis says good explanations can reveal falsehoods. |
| 9658 | An explanation tells us how an event was caused [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: An explanation, I think, is an account of etiology: it tells us something about how an event was caused. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: Will this cover mathematical explanations? Numbers would have to have causal powers. |
| 4809 | Lewis endorses the thesis that all explanation of singular events is causal explanation [Lewis, by Psillos] |
| Full Idea: Lewis endorses the thesis that all explanation of singular events is causal explanation. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Causal Explanation [1986]) by Stathis Psillos - Causation and Explanation p.237 | |
| A reaction: It is hard to challenge this. The assumption is that only nomological and causal explanations are possible, and the former are unobtainable for singular events. |
| 16280 | Often explanaton seeks fundamental laws, rather than causal histories [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Sometimes the pursuit of explanation is more the pursuit of unified and general fundamental laws than of information about the causal histories of events. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 2.7) | |
| A reaction: It is hard to disagree, given the 'sometimes'. I don't think that Newton's Law of Gravity (say), with its lovely equation, actually explained anything at all about gravity. Finding the law closes the quest for an accurate description of what happens. |
| 14321 | To explain an event is to provide some information about its causal history [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Here is my main thesis: to explain an event is to provide some information about its causal history. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causal Explanation [1986], II) | |
| A reaction: The obvious thought is that you might provide some tiny and barely relevant part of that causal history, such as a bird perched on the Titanic's iceberg. So how do we distinguish the 'important' causal information? |
| 16037 | Locke seems to use real essence for scientific explanation, and substratum for the being of a thing [Locke, by Jones,J-E] |
| Full Idea: It seems that Locke employs the concept of a real essence when he is addressing issues of scientific explanation, and he appeals to substratum when he is discussing the general concept of what it is to be a thing (as opposed to a property or mode). | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by Jan-Erik Jones - Real Essence §4.4 | |
| A reaction: [This idea is attributed to Nicholas Jolley 1999] Locke was, of course, utterly pessimistic about the possibility of knowing real essences. For Aristotle, real essence does both jobs. |
| 16032 | To explain qualities, Locke invokes primary and secondary qualities, not real essences [Locke, by Jones,J-E] |
| Full Idea: When criticising the scholastic account of the explanation of qualities, Locke typically refrains from invoking real essences, and instead talks about primary, secondary and tertiary qualities. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.08.10-26) by Jan-Erik Jones - Real Essence §2 | |
| A reaction: This is the good empiricists' response to attempts to explain by means of essences - that we must stick to what is 'nearer the surface' and more knowable, only distinguishing which bits match the reality of the object. |
| 12519 | Gold is supposed to have a real essence, from whence its detectable properties flow [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The ring on my finger is supposed to have a real essence, whereby it is gold, from whence those qualities flow which I find in it, viz. its colour, weight, hardness, fusibility, fixedness, and change of colour upon a slight touch of mercury, etc. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.31.06) | |
| A reaction: This is Locke's notion of essence, as simply the underlying cause of the detectable properties. Oderberg says real essences are not hidden, but are the macro-features we all know gold to have. Locke never denies real essences. |
| 16274 | If the well-ordering of a pack of cards was by shuffling, the explanation would make it more surprising [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Suppose you find in a hotel room a pack of cards in exactly standard order. Not surprising - maybe it's a new deck, or someone arranged them. Not so. They got that way by being fairly shuffled. The explanation would make the explanandum more surprising. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 2.7) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] A lovely Lewisian example, that instantly makes big trouble for the (implausible) view that a cause is something which increases the likelihood of a thing. |
| 3995 | A mind is an organ of representation [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A mind is an organ of representation. | |
| From: David Lewis (Lewis: reduction of mind (on himself) [1994], p.421) | |
| A reaction: This does not seem to necessarily involve awareness, so it seems to put intentionality at the centre of things. It is a good slogan. |
| 12551 | We are satisfied that other men have minds, from their words and actions [Locke] |
| Full Idea: That there are minds and thinking beings in other men as well as himself, every man has a reason, from their words and actions, to be satisfied. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.03.27) | |
| A reaction: Locke is aware of the question of other minds, but is rather easily fobbed off with an answer. He hadn't thought enough about good robots, for all his imagination, and Descartes' mention of them. |
| 12483 | Unlike humans, animals cannot entertain general ideas [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The having of general ideas is that which puts a perfect distinction betwixt man and brutes. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.11.10) | |
| A reaction: Animals were massively underestimated before the twentieth century. Animals must recognise types of things, as well as individual things. They must register that an individual animal is a dangerous or tasty species. Locke grants them 'some reason'. |
| 5002 | Consciousness is the perception of what passes in a man's own mind [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Consciousness is the perception of what passes in a man's own mind. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.01.19) | |
| A reaction: This sounds to me like one capacity of human consciousness, which is second-order awareness. I take animals to have first-order awareness (of the world), but not perception of their own awareness. Self-awareness is crucial to his concept of a 'person'. |
| 2603 | If we aren't aware that an idea is innate, the concept of innate is meaningless; if we do, all ideas seem innate [Locke] |
| Full Idea: To say a notion is imprinted on the mind, but the mind is ignorant of it, is to make this impression nothing. ….But if the capacity of knowing be the test of innateness, all the truths a man ever comes to know will be every one of them innate. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 1.02.05) | |
| A reaction: The problem is, I think, that Locke is relying wholly on introspection to decide on what is innate. If you turn to Chomsky's evidence, of children learning more language than they could possibly taught, there seems to be lots of evidence. |
| 8209 | Part of the folk concept of qualia is what makes recognition and comparison possible [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The concept of qualia (a part of the folk concept) is the concept of properties of experiences apt for causing abilities to recognize and to imagine experiences of the same type. | |
| From: David Lewis (Should a materialist believe in qualia? [1995], p.327) | |
| A reaction: I presume the other part of the folk concept would be what it is about qualia that makes this possible, namely that they 'look/sound/feel.. the same'. Lewis emphasises the functional aspect, which could not possibly be the whole story. |
| 2421 | There is nothing illogical about inverted qualia [Locke] |
| Full Idea: It would not carry any implication of falsehood to our simple ideas if by the different structure of our organs it were so ordered that the same object should produce in several men's minds different ideas at the same time (e.g. the colour of a violet). | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.32.15) | |
| A reaction: The vital point here is that it would be based on 'different structures'. I personally cannot see any objection to the possibility that someone's qualia might be inverted - by brain surgery. That is a problem for naďve realists, though. |
| 3522 | The same object might produce violet in one mind and marigold in another [Locke] |
| Full Idea: By the different structure of our organs the same object could produce in several men's minds different ideas, viz. if the idea that a violet produced in one man's mind by his eyes were the same that a marigold produced in another man's. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.32.15) | |
| A reaction: This is Locke's original proposal that inverted qualia might be possible, but note that he proposes a physical basis for the inversion, in 'different structures'. Without that, claiming qualia inversion is the same as claiming that zombies are possible. |
| 7721 | Locke's view that thoughts are made of ideas asserts the crucial role of imagination [Locke] |
| Full Idea: I construe Locke's thesis that our thoughts are 'composed of ideas' as the proposal that thinking (in its central form) crucially involves processes of imagination. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]), quoted by E.J. Lowe - Locke on Human Understanding III | |
| A reaction: I like this, because I am struck with how incredibly wrong Descartes was about imagination, proposing that it was some trivial and peripheral aspect of the mind (Idea 1399). "Thinking just is imagination" is a plausible slogan. |
| 15450 | Maybe abstraction is just mereological subtraction [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: We could say that abstraction is just mereological subtraction of universals. | |
| From: David Lewis (Against Structural Universals [1986], 'Uninstantiated') | |
| A reaction: This only works, of course, for the theories that complex universals have simpler universals as 'parts'. This is just a passing surmise. I take it that abstraction only works for a thing whose unity survives the abstraction. |
| 12476 | Every external object or internal idea suggests to us the idea of unity [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Existence and unity are two other ideas that are suggested to the understanding, by every object without, and every idea within. ..And whatever we can consider as one thing, whether a real being, or idea, suggests to the understanding the idea of unity. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.07.07) | |
| A reaction: It seems to me blatantly obvious that there is a close tie between this fact of metaphysics or psychology (or both) and the notion of a 'unit' in mathematics. Without this faculty of 'identifying' things, there would be no numbers or counting. |
| 12501 | The mind can make a unity out of anything, no matter how diverse [Locke] |
| Full Idea: There are no things so remote, nor so contrary, which the mind cannot, by its art of composition, bring into one idea, as is visible in that signified by the name 'Universe'. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.24.03) | |
| A reaction: This encourages ideas like unrestricted mereological composition, and the existence of the trout-turkey, but Locke is only saying that we can think of things that way. We can still strongly resist bizarre unities, and look only for natural ones, or none. |
| 9083 | The mind creates abstractions by generalising about appearances of objects, ignoring time or place [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The mind makes the particular ideas, received from particular objects, to become general,..by considering them as they are in the mind such appearances, separate from all other circumstances of real existence, as time or place. This is called ABSTRACTION. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.09.09) | |
| A reaction: What is distinctive here is that abstraction works on 'appearances' within the mind (which might be labelled 'sense-data'), rather than on the actual properties of the objects. Presumably abstraction can work on inferred unobservable properties? |
| 7040 | General words represent general ideas, which are abstractions from immediate circumstances [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Words become general by being made the signs of general Ideas; and Ideas become general by separating them from circumstances of Time and Place and other ideas; by this way of abstraction they are made capable of representing more individuals than one. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.03.06) | |
| A reaction: Fodor says this is they key move for empiricism. You can dispense with platonic forms and pure universals, and simple show general concepts as a way the mind has of dealing with particulars, which are built from experiences. |
| 12528 | If a man sees a friend die in a room, he associates the pain with the room [Locke] |
| Full Idea: A man saw his friend die in such a room, though these have in nature nothing to do one with another, yet when the idea of the place occurs to his mind it brings the pain with it. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.33.12) | |
| A reaction: Students of Hume think the notion of contiguity of ideas was original to Hume. Well it wasn't. |
| 5512 | Locke uses 'self' for a momentary entity, and 'person' for an extended one [Locke, by Martin/Barresi] |
| Full Idea: For the most part Locke used the word 'self' to refer to a momentary entity, and 'person' to refer to a temporally extended one. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by R Martin / J Barresi - Introduction to 'Personal Identity' p.38 | |
| A reaction: This might be quite helpful. Compare the word 'event' with the word 'history'. Many selves make a person, and presumably they don't need to be identical to one another, but they must be significantly connected. |
| 1202 | A person is intelligent, rational, self-aware, continuous, conscious [Locke] |
| Full Idea: A person is a thinking, intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places; which it does by that consciousness which is inseparable from thinking. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.09) | |
| A reaction: Locke's famous definition of a person. Several of the terms seem redundant, and it seems to come down to 'conscious, rational, and self-aware'. But 'self-aware' also seems redundant, because you must already be a person to be aware of it… |
| 1381 | Someone mad then sane is two persons, judging by our laws and punishments [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Human laws do not punish the mad man for the sober man's actions, nor the sober man for what the mad man did, thereby making them two persons. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.20) | |
| A reaction: This may be a misinterpretation by Locke; the punishments may be based on the likelihood of the behaviour recurring, rather than on whether it is the same person. I may judge the madman as guilty of the sane action, but think punishment is pointless. |
| 1385 | 'Person' is a term used about responsibility, involving law, and happiness and misery [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Person is a forensic term, appropriating actions and their merit; and so belongs only to intelligent agents capable of law, and happiness, and misery. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.26) | |
| A reaction: This strikes me as being essentially correct, and it makes discussions of personal identity focus (at least partly) on the will, as the aspect of the mind which makes decisions, and is held responsible for them. |
| 1372 | Our personal identity must depend on something we are aware of, namely consciousness [Locke] |
| Full Idea: It being the same consciousness that makes a man himself to himself, personal identity depends on that only, whether it be annexed solely to one individual substance, or can be continued in a succession of several substances. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.10) | |
| A reaction: The counterexample would be a highly sophisticated robot that lacked consciousness. IF it could achieve 'sophisticated' behaviour, we might need personal identity to explain its utterances and doings. |
| 1378 | My little finger is part of me if I am conscious of it [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Everyone finds, that, whilst comprehended under that consciousness, the little finger is as much a part of himself as what is most so. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.17) | |
| A reaction: It seems as great a violation of someone's personhood to shave off their hair as to cut off the tip of a finger. Can I steal one of your kidneys, since you are not conscious of them? |
| 5175 | Personal identity is my perceptions, but not my memory, as I forget too much [Ayer on Locke] |
| Full Idea: The number of my perceptions which I can remember at any time always falls far short of the number of those which have actually occurred in my history, and those which I cannot remember are no less constitutive of my self than those which I can. | |
| From: comment on John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by A.J. Ayer - Language,Truth and Logic Ch.7 | |
| A reaction: Ayer is summarising Hume's criticism of Locke. It implies that Hume agrees with Locke on the 'consciousness' theory, which is a theory which should appeal to all empiricists. It is nonsense, though. I am not my awareness of some passing gnat. |
| 1363 | Locke's theory confusingly tries to unite consciousness and memory [Reid on Locke] |
| Full Idea: Memory is a different experience from consciousness, and Locke should not link them together, but should admit that his theory depends on memory. | |
| From: comment on John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.10) by Thomas Reid - Essays on Intellectual Powers 3: Memory Ch 6 | |
| A reaction: Interpreters of Locke over-emphasise memory. He thought that, effectively, a person IS a consciousness, and only got interested in memory as a way of extending consciousness across time. Then the epistemology of memory got him into trouble. |
| 1368 | Locke mistakes similarity of a memory to its original event for identity [Reid on Locke] |
| Full Idea: Locke's mistake arises because he confuses the 'same' consciousness of past events. A memory is only the 'same' in the sense of being similar, not in the sense of complete identity. | |
| From: comment on John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.10) by Thomas Reid - Essays on Intellectual Powers 3: Memory Ch 6 | |
| A reaction: cf Locke's point in Ideas 1197 and 1373. |
| 1373 | Identity over time involves remembering actions just as they happened [Locke] |
| Full Idea: As far as any intelligent being can repeat the idea of any past action with the same consciousness it had of it at first, and with the same consciousness it has of any present action; so far it is the same personal self. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.10) | |
| A reaction: Reid's criticism of 'same' (Idea 1368). |
| 1380 | Should we punish people who commit crimes in their sleep? [Locke] |
| Full Idea: To punish Socrates waking for what sleeping Socrates thought, and waking Socrates was never conscious of, would be no more right, than to punish one twin for what his brother-twin did. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.19) | |
| A reaction: Personally I would feel guilty if I had a dream in which I had behaved immorally, though I wouldn't expect to be punished. It would be shocking to deny all responsibility if you had murdered someone while you were sleep-walking. |
| 5511 | For Locke, conscious awareness unifies a person at an instant and over time [Locke, by Martin/Barresi] |
| Full Idea: Central to Locke's account of the self is the idea that consciousness is reflexive and that it plays a dual role in self-constitution: it is what unifies a person not only over time, but also at a time. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by R Martin / J Barresi - Introduction to 'Personal Identity' p.37 | |
| A reaction: This is a good explanation of Locke's view, and shows clearly why Locke does not hold a 'memory' theory (unless, of course, one held the view that all consciousness is memory). Consciousness unites self, or self unites consciousness? |
| 12509 | If the soul individuates a man, and souls are transferable, then a hog could be a man [Locke] |
| Full Idea: If identity of soul makes the same man, and the same individual spirit may be united to different bodies, it is possible men living in distant ages may have been the same man. But if the soul of Heliogabalus is in a hog, we would not say a hog is a man. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.06) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] Locke uses this to say that Heliogabalus remains Heliogabalus, despite being in a hog. This is a good case of conceivability being very misleading about actual possibility. If Heliogabalus is transferable, then of course he isn't physical. |
| 1376 | Identity must be in consciousness not substance, because it seems transferable [Locke] |
| Full Idea: If the same consciousness can be transferred from one thinking substance to another, then two thinking substances may make but one person. For one consciousness being preserved, whether in the same or different substances, personal identity is preserved. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.13) | |
| A reaction: I take the sensible modern view to be that the transfer of the same consciousness between two different physical substances is absurd, since consciousness is (at the very least) entailed by the physical state. Could there be mentally identical twins? |
| 12512 | If someone becomes conscious of Nestor's actions, then he is Nestor [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Let a person once find himself conscious of any of the actions of Nestor, he then finds himself the same person with Nestor. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.14) | |
| A reaction: This seems to invite the sort of response Butler offered, that it would be a given that it was YOU who was thinking Nestor's thoughts, and presumably becoming puzzled thereby. If I imagine Troy, am I thinking Nestor's thoughts? |
| 12513 | If a prince's soul entered a cobbler's body, the person would be the prince (and the man the cobbler) [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Should the soul of a prince, carrying with it the consciousness of the prince's past life, enter the body of a cobbler, everyone sees he would be the same person with the prince, accountable for the prince's actions. But who would say he is the same man? | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.15) | |
| A reaction: This is another case of conceivability being misleading about possibility. I take this transfer to be utterly (metaphysically) impossible, and hence not a good 'intuition-pump' for assessing what personal identity means. |
| 12514 | On Judgement Day, no one will be punished for actions they cannot remember [Locke] |
| Full Idea: In the Great Day, wherein the secrets of all hearts shall be laid open, it may be reasonable to think no one shall be made to answer for what he knows nothing of. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.22) | |
| A reaction: If you could persuade devout criminals of the truth of Locke's idea, you could make a fortune selling them 'forgetfulness pills', which guaranteed they couldn't remember a thing on Judgement Day. Or perhaps that's what marihuana does. |
| 1397 | Locke sees underlying substance as irrelevant to personal identity [Locke, by Noonan] |
| Full Idea: The heart of Locke's account of personal identity is the claim that identity of substance is irrelevant. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.25) by Harold Noonan - Personal Identity 2.6 | |
| A reaction: It is irrelevant whether a sound recording is made of wax, vinyl or CD-stuff. This is a functionalist view. A basic question is whether we consider it naturally or metaphysically possible to make a person out of anything other than brain. |
| 6139 | Locke implies that each thought has two thinkers - me, and 'my' substance [Merricks on Locke] |
| Full Idea: Locke's thesis about persons implies that, whenever I have a thought, two thinkers have that thought: me and 'my' thinking substance. | |
| From: comment on John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by Trenton Merricks - Objects and Persons §2.IV | |
| A reaction: Although Locke asserts the existence of a distinct entity, the 'person', he is fairly vague about the ontology involved. Some have suggested that he is a functionalist, and we could say that the substance 'constitutes' the person. |
| 5513 | Two persons might have qualitatively identical consciousnesses, so that isn't enough [Kant on Locke] |
| Full Idea: Kant thought that personal identity could not simply consist in sameness of consciousness, since someone's consciousness might be qualitatively similar to that of someone else who had existed previously. | |
| From: comment on John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by Immanuel Kant - Critique of Pure Reason | |
| A reaction: An interesting point, which leads to the question of whether two conscious events must by type-identical or token-identical to confer identity over time. Locke implies type- (which leads to Kant's objection). He needed, but couldn't have, token-. |
| 1345 | Locke's move from substance to consciousness is a slippery slope [Butler on Locke] |
| Full Idea: Because Locke says that personal identity is in consciousness rather than substance, this is a slippery slope which leads others to deny that the self exists (because consciousness is never quite the same). | |
| From: comment on John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by Joseph Butler - Analogy of Religion App.1 | |
| A reaction: If you are hoping to have a personal identity that can last for all of eternity, the slightest change now will mean disappearance eventually. There might be boundaries, but then the boundaries would define the identity more than consciousness does. |
| 1197 | No two thoughts at different times can be the same, as they have different beginnings [Locke] |
| Full Idea: No thought, considered as at different times, can be the same, each part thereof having a different beginning of existence. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.02) | |
| A reaction: cf Reid's objection (Idea 1368). Presumably there could be type-identity? If I have a thought which is identical to the thought I had yesterday, how do I tell whether it is the same token or merely the same type? It fails Locke's introspection test. |
| 1364 | Locke confuses the test for personal identity with the thing itself [Reid on Locke] |
| Full Idea: In Locke's doctrine, personal identity is confounded with the evidence which we have of our personal identity. | |
| From: comment on John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.10) by Thomas Reid - Essays on Intellectual Powers 3: Memory Ch 6 | |
| A reaction: A clever criticism. Compare Idea 5424. I think I agree. If Locke says I have continuous consciousness, and Parfit says it is all I care about, this needs explaining. How do we explain the fact that I care about my past and my future? |
| 12511 | If consciousness is interrupted, and we forget our past selves, are we still the same thinking thing? [Locke] |
| Full Idea: In cases of our consciousness being interrupted and we losing sight of our past selves, doubt are raised whether we are the same thinking thing, i.e. that same substance or no. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.10) | |
| A reaction: Only Locke and Parfit, with their psychological continuity theory, need to anguish over this problem. Personally I see myself as irredeemably an animal, retaining my identity even when I can't remember my own name. |
| 1361 | If identity is consciousness, could a person move between bodies or fragment into parts? [Reid on Locke] |
| Full Idea: Locke's theory implies one person could shift between twenty intelligent beings, and one intelligent being could fragment mentally into twenty different persons, which is ridiculous. | |
| From: comment on John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.13) by Thomas Reid - Essays on Intellectual Powers 3: Memory Ch 6 | |
| A reaction: Locke only says that IF the person 'shifted', that would not alter our notion that one person existed here, as long as the consciousness remained the same. The notion of 'fragmenting', though, leads to Parfit saying that personal identity is unimportant. |
| 21326 | Locke's memory theory of identity confuses personal identity with the test for it [Reid on Locke] |
| Full Idea: In Locke's doctrine not only is consciousness confounded with memory, but, which is still more strange, personal identity is confounded with the evidence which we have of our personal identity. | |
| From: comment on John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.14) by Thomas Reid - Essays on Intellectual Powers 3: Memory III.Ch 6 | |
| A reaction: The same type of criticism as Russell's view of the coherence theory of truth (Idea 5424). I'm inclined to think that Reid has precisely identified Locke's main error. Some confuse the existence of a chair with our tests for whether the chair is there! |
| 1387 | Butler thought Locke's theory was doomed once he rejected mental substance [Perry on Locke] |
| Full Idea: Butler thought that Locke's denial of the requirement of identity of substance doomed his analysis of personal identity. | |
| From: comment on John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.25) by John Perry - Introduction to 'Personal Identity' Intro | |
| A reaction: Butler seems to have thought that psychological criteria were a slippery slope, whereas substance gives the necessary fixed identity (such as a bishop would require). Personally I say that personal identity is the activity of a physical substance. |
| 12809 | Nothing about me is essential [Locke] |
| Full Idea: 'Tis necessary for me to be as I am; God and Nature has made me so: but there is nothing I have is essential to me. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.04) | |
| A reaction: This is the aspect of Locke's critique of essentialism which Leibniz particularly disliked. Locke's view still has plenty of defenders, but I take it to be wrong, and Pinker seems to suggest that empirical research is beginning to agree with me. |
| 3792 | We are free to decide not to follow our desires [Locke] |
| Full Idea: We have a power to suspend the prosecution of this or that desire; as everyone daily may experiment in himself. This seems to me the source of all liberty, ..which is (as I think improperly) call'd 'free will'. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.21.47) | |
| A reaction: This strikes me as a feeble defence of free will, since we have no idea of the origin of the decision not to act according to some desire. I see no sign of free will in introspection, despite what some people claim. |
| 12494 | Men are not free to will, because they cannot help willing [Locke] |
| Full Idea: A man is not at liberty to will or not to will, because he cannot forbear willing. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.21.24) | |
| A reaction: Not quite an answer to the big problem, but an interesting observation for those who have high hopes of a truly, deeply and extensively free will. |
| 8424 | Determinism says there can't be two identical worlds up to a time, with identical laws, which then differ [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: By determinism I mean that the prevailing laws of nature are such that there do not exist any two possible worlds which are exactly alike up to that time, which differ thereafter, and in which those laws are never violated. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causation [1973], p.196) | |
| A reaction: This would mean that the only way an action of free will could creep in would be if it accepted being a 'violation' of the laws of nature. Fans of free will would probably prefer to call it a 'natural' phenomenon. I'm with Lewis. |
| 12492 | Liberty is a power of agents, so can't be an attribute of wills [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Liberty, which is but a power, belongs only to agents, and cannot be an attribute or modification of the will, which is also but a power. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.21.14) | |
| A reaction: He is suggesting the 'free will' is a category mistake, but why shouldn't a power have a power? Magnetism can be strong, or focused. He is ducking the question of what ultimately controls the will. |
| 12493 | A man is free insofar as he can act according to his own preferences [Locke] |
| Full Idea: So far as his power reaches, of acting or not acting, by the determination of his own thought preferring either, so far is a man free. ..We can scarcely imagine any being freer, than to be able to do what he wills. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.21.21) | |
| A reaction: It take this approach, which Hume echoes, to be ducking the metaphysical problem, of where the act of willing originates. Locke goes on to admit this. |
| 7840 | For all we know, an omnipotent being might have enabled material beings to think [Locke] |
| Full Idea: We may never be able to know whether any material being thinks; it being impossible for us, by contemplation of our own ideas to discover whether Omnipotency has not given to some systems of matter fitly disposed, a power to perceive and think. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.03.06) | |
| A reaction: Leibniz attacked this vigorously, but I have to agree with Locke. We now see that it is just as mysterious for 'mental' substance to think as it is for physical substance. If in doubt, apply the Razor, and stick with the substance you know. |
| 7441 | Experiences are defined by their causal role, and causal roles belong to physical states [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The definitive characteristic of any experience is its causal role, its most typical causes and effects; but we materialists believe that these causal roles which belong by analytic necessity to experiences belong in fact to certain physical states. | |
| From: David Lewis (An Argument for the Identity Theory [1966], §I) | |
| A reaction: This is the Causal version of functionalism, which Armstrong also developed. The word 'typical' leads later to a teleological element in the theory (e.g. in Lycan). There are other things to say about mental states than just their causal role. |
| 7442 | 'Pain' contingently names the state that occupies the causal role of pain [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: On my theory, 'pain' is a contingent name - that is, a name with different denotations in different possible worlds - since in any world, 'pain' names whatever state happens in that world to occupy the causal role definitive of pain. | |
| From: David Lewis (An Argument for the Identity Theory [1966], §II n6) | |
| A reaction: Better to say that 'pain' (like 'sound') is ambiguous. It is indiscriminately used by English-speakers to mean [1] the raw quale that we experience when damaged, and [2] whatever it is that leads to pain behaviour. Maybe frogs have 2 but not 1. |
| 7444 | Type-type psychophysical identity is combined with a functional characterisation of pain [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The materialist theory Armstrong and I proposed joins claims of type-type psychophysical identity with a behaviourist or functionalist way of characterising mental states such as pain. | |
| From: David Lewis (Mad Pain and Martian Pain [1980], §III) | |
| A reaction: Armstrong has backed off from 'type-type' identity, because the realisations of a given mental state might be too diverse to be considered of the same type. Putnam's machine functionalism allows the possibility of dualism. |
| 12500 | Thinking without matter and matter that thinks are equally baffling [Locke] |
| Full Idea: It is no harder to conceive how thinking should exist without matter, than how matter should think. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.23.32) | |
| A reaction: This kind of aporia is at the heart of modern 'mysterianism', exemplified by Colin McGinn, and I find that Locke fully endorses such an attitude, and should be seen as the first Mysterian. |
| 15996 | We can't begin to conceive what would produce some particular experience within our minds [Locke] |
| Full Idea: We are so far from knowing what figure, size or motion of parts produce a yellow colour, sweet taste, or sharp sound, that we cannot conceive how any size, figure or motion can produce in us the colour, taste or sound. There is no conceivable connection. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.03.13) | |
| A reaction: There is a good case for naming Locke as the first mysterian, and he puts his finger here on what I think is the weirdest puzzle of the mind - why THAT experience for THAT stimulus. In the 21st century we should not give up so easily. |
| 12552 | Thoughts moving bodies, and bodies producing thoughts, are equally unknowable [Locke] |
| Full Idea: How any thought should produce a motion in body is as remote from the nature of our ideas, as how any body should produce any thought in the mind. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.03.28) | |
| A reaction: Compare McGinn's Idea 2540. Locke was a thoroughgoing Mysterian, but in his case it was part of a widespread pessimism about penetrating any of the inner secrets of nature. Modern Mysterians see it as the one secret we can't get. |
| 3994 | Human pain might be one thing; Martian pain might be something else [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Human pain might be one thing. Martian pain might be something else. | |
| From: David Lewis (Lewis: reduction of mind (on himself) [1994], p.420) | |
| A reaction: A key suggestion in support of type-type physicalism, and against the multiple realisability objection to the identity theory |
| 8579 | Psychophysical identity implies the possibility of idealism or panpsychism [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Psychophysical identity is a two-way street: if all mental properties are physical, then some physical properties are mental; but then all physical properties might be mental, or every property of everything might be both physical and mental. | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Min Mat') | |
| A reaction: I suspect that this is the thought that has impressed Galen Strawson. The whole story seems to include the existence of 'mental properties' as a distinct category. This line of thought strikes me as a serious misunderstanding. |
| 7445 | The application of 'pain' to physical states is non-rigid and contingent [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The word 'pain' is a non-rigid designator; it is a contingent matter what state the concept and the word apply to. (Note: so the sort of theory Kripke argues against is not what we propose). | |
| From: David Lewis (Mad Pain and Martian Pain [1980], §III) | |
| A reaction: I like the view that a given quale is necessarily identical to a given mental state, but that many mental states might occupy a given behavioural role. The smell of roses might occupy the behavioural role of pain. Frog pain isn't quite like ours. |
| 3989 | I am a reductionist about mind because I am an a priori reductionist about everything [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: My reductionism about mind began as part of an a priori reductionism about everything. | |
| From: David Lewis (Lewis: reduction of mind (on himself) [1994], p.412) | |
| A reaction: He says this is 'a priori' to avoid giving hostages to fortune, but I think is the best explanation of the total evidence facing us |
| 7443 | A theory must be mixed, to cover qualia without behaviour, and behaviour without qualia [Lewis, by PG] |
| Full Idea: To pass our test it seems that our theory will have to be a 'mixed' theory, to account for the Madman (whose pain has odd causes, and odd effects) and also for the Martian (who has normal causes and effects, but an odd physical state). | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Mad Pain and Martian Pain [1980], §II) by PG - Db (ideas) | |
| A reaction: A statement that 'pain' is ambiguous (qualia/causal role) would help a lot here. Martians have the causal role but no qualia, and the madman has the qualia but lacks the causal role. I say lots of different qualia might have the same causal role. |
| 18416 | Attitudes involve properties (not propositions), and belief is self-ascribing the properties [Lewis, by Solomon] |
| Full Idea: Lewis suggests that we take attitudes to have properties, rather than propositions, as contents. To stand in the belief relation to a property is to self-ascribe that property. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Attitudes De Dicto and De Se [1979]) by Robert C. Solomon - Erotic Love as a Moral Virtue 05.1 | |
| A reaction: This is the sort of convoluted suggestion that Lewis has to come up with, in pursuit of his project of a wholly consistent metaphysics. Examine Lewis's account of properties before you judge this proposal! Self-ascribing is joining a set! |
| 3992 | Folk psychology makes good predictions, by associating mental states with causal roles [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Folk psychology is a powerful instrument of prediction, …which associates with each mental state a typical causal role. | |
| From: David Lewis (Lewis: reduction of mind (on himself) [1994], p.416) | |
| A reaction: This seems a good account of why we should take folk psychology very seriously, even if it is sometimes wrong (e.g. about people who are mentally ill). |
| 6712 | For Locke, abstract ideas are our main superiority of understanding over animals [Locke, by Berkeley] |
| Full Idea: Locke seemed to think the having abstract general ideas is what puts the widest difference in point of understanding betwixt man and beast. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by George Berkeley - The Principles of Human Knowledge Intro §11 | |
| A reaction: I currently favour meta-thought (thought about thought) as the distinction of homo sapiens, but maybe abstraction is an aspect of that, because you have to pick out common factors amongst a variety of experiences. |
| 16390 | Lewis's popular centred worlds approach gives an attitude an index of world, subject and time [Lewis, by Recanati] |
| Full Idea: Many philosophers now prefer Lewis's centred worlds framework for indexicals …It is two-dimensional, saying an attitude only has a truth-value when evaluated with respect to a contextual index, containing a subject and time, as well as a world. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Attitudes De Dicto and De Se [1979]) by François Recanati - Mental Files 18.2 | |
| A reaction: [compressed; this is said to have largely ousted the older Kaplan-Perry view] You only begin to understand the possible worlds game when you see how many problems find proposed 'solutions' there. |
| 3996 | Folk psychology doesn't say that there is a language of thought [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I don't believe that folk psychology says there is a language of thought. | |
| From: David Lewis (Lewis: reduction of mind (on himself) [1994], p.422) | |
| A reaction: This is aimed at Jerry Fodor. Certainly folk psychology is a strong theory, but a so-called 'language of thought' (the brain's machine code) seems a much weaker one. |
| 12496 | Complex ideas are all resolvable into simple ideas [Locke] |
| Full Idea: All our complex ideas are ultimately resolvable into simple ideas, of which they are compounded and originally made up. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.22.09) | |
| A reaction: This can certainly be challenged. I guess we form the concept of a 'bird' before we form the concept of a 'feather'. How ideas are arrived at is quite different from ways in which they can be analysed and broken down. |
| 15967 | The word 'idea' covers thinking best, for imaginings, concepts, and basic experiences [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Idea being that term which serves best to stand for the object of understanding when a man thinks, I use it to express what is meant by Phantasm, Notion, Species, or whatever it is, which the Mind can be employ'd about in thinking. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 1.01.08), quoted by Peter Alexander - Ideas, Qualities and Corpuscles 04.1 | |
| A reaction: Compare my earlier Idea 6486, which caricatures Locke. Alexanders says Phantasms are uncaused mental images, Notions are concepts, and Species is an appearance of an object or quality to the mind. Locke deliberately covered them all. |
| 6486 | Ideas are the objects of understanding when we think [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Ideas are whatsoever is the object of a man's understanding whenever a man thinks. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 1.01.08) | |
| A reaction: Robinson quotes this to show how infuriatingly vague Locke is about ideas. Obviously they can be further analysed into a variety of mental events, ranging from inputs to reactions to judgements. |
| 3998 | If you don't share an external world with a brain-in-a-vat, then externalism says you don't share any beliefs [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: If the famous brain in a bottle is your exact duplicate in brain states, but only experiences the computer's virtual reality, so that you share no objects of acquaintance, then according to externalists you share no beliefs whatsoever. | |
| From: David Lewis (Lewis: reduction of mind (on himself) [1994], p.424) | |
| A reaction: A very nice reductio ad absurdum of the idea that all concepts and beliefs have external meaning. |
| 3997 | Nothing shows that all content is 'wide', or that wide content has logical priority [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: There is nothing to support the thesis that wide content is the only kind of content, or that it is any way pre-eminent or basic. | |
| From: David Lewis (Lewis: reduction of mind (on himself) [1994], p.424) | |
| A reaction: The idea that all content is 'wide' seems quite wrong. We can't all be wrong about the meaning of a word, because the underlying facts have not yet been discovered. |
| 3999 | A spontaneous duplicate of you would have your brain states but no experience, so externalism would deny him any beliefs [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: According to externalists, Davidson's 'swampman' is your exact duplicate in brains states, but hasn't had time to become acquainted with much, so he has virtually no beliefs. | |
| From: David Lewis (Lewis: reduction of mind (on himself) [1994], p.425) | |
| A reaction: An implausible fantasy, but it does highlight the fact that beliefs and concepts are primarily internal states. |
| 4000 | Wide content derives from narrow content and relationships with external things [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Wide content is derivative, a product of narrow content and relationships of acquaintance with external things. | |
| From: David Lewis (Lewis: reduction of mind (on himself) [1994], p.430) | |
| A reaction: I would say: content is a mental state, but it is created and fixed by a community, and wide content is the part fixed by experts in the community. We can all be wrong about meanings, and occasionally most of us are wrong about a specialised meaning. |
| 12475 | All our ideas derive either from sensation, or from inner reflection [Locke] |
| Full Idea: External material things, as the objects of sensation; and the operations of our own minds within, as the objects of reflection, are to me the only originals from whence all our ideas take their beginning. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.01.04) | |
| A reaction: The obvious opposition comes from claims about innate ideas. That a great deal is innate is fairly obvious, but it seems very hard to demonstrate that any of it qualifies as 'ideas'. |
| 17735 | Simple ideas are produced in us by external things, and they match their appearances [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Simple ideas are not fictions of our fancies, but the natural and regular productions of things without us, really operating upon us. ...They represent to us things under those appearances which they are fitted to produce in us. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.04.04) | |
| A reaction: Quoted by Jenkins to support her arguments for empirical knowledge being encoded in our concepts (which then produce a priori knowledge). I approve. This is the sort of realism in Locke which Berkeley and Hume shy away from. |
| 12471 | Innate ideas are nothing, if they are in the mind but we are unaware of them [Locke] |
| Full Idea: To say a Notion is imprinted n the Mind, and yet at the same time to say, that the mind is ignorant of it, and never yet took notice of it, is to make this Impression nothing. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 1.02.05) | |
| A reaction: Not much of an argument, given that Locke would accept that we remember things, but have enormous difficulty recalling them. The introspective evidence of innateness I take to be the obviousness of a new idea, when it strikes. |
| 5827 | A species of thing is an abstract idea, and a word is a sign that refers to the idea [Locke] |
| Full Idea: That which general words signify is a sort of things; and does it by being a sign of an abstract idea in the mind; ..so that the essences (or species) of things are nothing else but these abstract ideas. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]), quoted by Stephen P. Schwartz - Intro to Naming,Necessity and Natural Kinds §II | |
| A reaction: This has come in for a lot of criticism, culminating in Putnam saying that meanings 'ain't in the head' (Idea 4099). Wittgenstein's 'beetle in the box' problem is also partly aimed at it (Idea 4147). Locke misses the social aspect of language. |
| 8901 | Abstraction is usually explained either by example, or conflation, or abstraction, or negatively [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Abstraction is usually explained in one of four ways: the Way of Example (cf. donkeys and numbers), the Way of Conflation (same as sets), the Negative Way (non-spatial and non-causal) or the Way of Abstraction (incomplete descriptions). | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.7) | |
| A reaction: [Compressed; a footnote dismisses Dummett's fifth way] Example has blurred boundaries, and explains nothing. Gerrymandered sets don't produce concepts. Negative accounts explain nothing. So it's the Way of Abstraction! |
| 8904 | The Way of Abstraction says an incomplete description of a concrete entity is the complete abstraction [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The Way of Abstraction says abstract entities are abstractions from concrete entities; they result from somehow subtracting specificity, so that an incomplete description of the original concrete entity is a complete description of the abstraction. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.7) | |
| A reaction: Defined like this, it rather looks as if abstractions would be entirely verbal - which may well be the correct situation, except that higher animals seem capable of minimal levels of abstraction. This Way is denigrated by Frege and Geach. |
| 8938 | The Way of Example compares donkeys and numbers, but what is the difference, and what are numbers? [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The Way of Example says concrete entities are things like donkeys and puddles, but abstract entities are things like numbers. That gives us little guidance. There are no uncontroversial accounts of numbers, and donkeys and number differ in too many ways. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.7) | |
| A reaction: That demolishes that fairly swiftly. It may be unfair to demand an agreed account of numbers, but the respect(s) in which donkeys and numbers differ needs to be spelled out before anything useful has been said. |
| 8903 | Abstracta can be causal: sets can be causes or effects; there can be universal effects; events may be sets [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Is it true that sets or universals cannot enter into causal interaction? Why can't we say that a set of things causes something, or something causes a set of effects? Or positive charge has characteristic effects? Or an event is a sort of set? | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.7) | |
| A reaction: This idea, and 8902, form a devastating critique of attempts to define abstraction in a purely negative way, as non-spatial and non-causal. Only a drastic revision of widely held views about sets, universals and events could save that account. |
| 8902 | If abstractions are non-spatial, then both sets and universals seem to have locations [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: If abstract entities are not located, then a set of things does seem to have a location, though perhaps a divided one; and universals, if they are wholly present in each particular, are where their instances are, so negation can't define abstraction. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.7) | |
| A reaction: He admits that non-spatial accounts of sets and universals are possible, but the jury is out on both of them, and more cautious theories, even if they are realist, will give them both locations. A good argument. |
| 8905 | If universals or tropes are parts of things, then abstraction picks out those parts [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A theory of non-spatiotemporal parts of things, whether recurring universals or non-recurring tropes, makes good sense of some abstractions. Unit negative charge is a universal common to particles, and an abstraction by being part of them. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.7) | |
| A reaction: He cautiously refers to 'some' abstractions. It is one of Donald Williams's proud boasts concerning his trope theory that it will handle this problem well. I'm not sure that we should be saying that abstractions are actually concrete bits of things. |
| 8906 | If we can abstract the extrinsic relations and features of objects, abstraction isn't universals or tropes [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Why can't we abstract a highly extrinsic aspect of something, say its surname, or its spatiotemporal location, or its role in a causal network, or its role in some body of theory? But these are unsuitable candidates for being genuine universals or tropes. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.7) | |
| A reaction: (This is a criticism of the proposal in Idea 8905) Obviously we can abstract such things. In particular the role in a causal network is a function, which is a central example of an abstract idea. Russell keeps reminding us that relations are universals. |
| 8907 | The abstract direction of a line is the equivalence class of it and all lines parallel to it [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: We can abstract the direction of a line by taking the direction as the equivalence class of that line and all lines parallel to it. There is no subtraction of detail, but a multiplication of it; by swamping it, the specifics of the original line get lost. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.7) | |
| A reaction: You can ask how wide a line is, but not how wide a direction is, so a detail IS being subtracted. I don't see how you can define the concept of a banana by just saying it is 'every object which is equivalent to a banana'. 'Parallel' is an abstraction. |
| 8908 | For most sets, the concept of equivalence is too artificial to explain abstraction [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Most sets cannot be regarded as abstractions by equivalence: most sets are equivalence classes only under thoroughly artificial equivalence. (And the empty set is not an equivalence class at all). | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.7) | |
| A reaction: [Recorded for further investigation..] My intuitions certainly cry out against such a thin logical notion giving a decent explanation of such a rich activity as abstraction. |
| 15443 | Mathematicians abstract by equivalence classes, but that doesn't turn a many into one [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: When mathematicians abstract one thing from others, they take an equivalence class. ....But it is only superficially a one; underneath, a class are still many. | |
| From: David Lewis (Against Structural Universals [1986], 'The pictorial') | |
| A reaction: This is Frege's approach to abstraction, and it is helpful to have it spelled out that this is a mathematical technique, even when applied by Frege to obtaining 'direction' from classes of parallels. Too much philosophy borrows inappropriate techniques. |
| 16289 | We can't account for an abstraction as 'from' something if the something doesn't exist [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: We cannot really be talking about the things whence an abstraction-like entity is abstracted if there are no such things. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 3.3) | |
| A reaction: Sounds like a killer blow, but I don't think so. I can't think of a concept which doesn't have a possible basis in reality, assuming that it might be a complex assemblage of abstracted components. |
| 7716 | Words were devised as signs for inner ideas, and their basic meaning is those ideas [Locke] |
| Full Idea: It was necessary that man should find some external sensible signs, whereby those invisible ideas might be made known to others; ..words, then, in their primary or immediate signification stand for nothing but the ideas in the mind of him that uses them. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.02.01-2) | |
| A reaction: This very unpopular theory could be defended. Note Locke's qualification about 'primary signification'. His Wittgensteinian opponents go on about community or communication, but maybe these are parasitic on the initial grunt referring to an inner idea? |
| 7308 | Words stand for the ideas in the mind of him that uses them [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Words in their primary or immediate signification, stand for nothing, but the ideas in the mind of him that uses them. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.02.02) | |
| A reaction: This is notorious and usually dismissed contemptuously. However, if the ideas themselves 'stand for' reality, our words are not just trapped in mental space. If my mental space contains things, presumably we can name them. |
| 18418 | A theory of perspectival de se content gives truth conditions relative to an agent [Lewis, by Cappelen/Dever] |
| Full Idea: Lewis's theory of a perspectival 'de se' content ...delivers truth conditions not absolutely, but only relative to a choice of agent/center. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Attitudes De Dicto and De Se [1979]) by Cappelen,H/Dever,Josh - The Inessential Indexical 05.7 | |
| A reaction: The proposal rests on a theory of 'centred' possible worlds, specifying the viewpoint of some agent within the whole system. It relies on accepting the idea that indexicals are special, which Cappelen and Dever reject. |
| 16278 | A particular functional role is what gives content to a thought [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Anything that is a thinker at all has a thought with a certain content in virtue of being in a state which occupies a certain functional role. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 2.3) | |
| A reaction: So often Lewis seems to get things the wrong way round. Maybe if you invert his entire (fabulously consistent) philosophy, you get the right answer? I take the content to be what makes the role possible. |
| 14215 | Causal theories of reference make errors in reference easy [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Whatever happens in special cases, causal theories usually make it easy to be wrong about the thing we refer to. | |
| From: David Lewis (Putnam's Paradox [1984], 'What Is') | |
| A reaction: I suppose the point of this is that there are no checks and balances to keep reference in focus, but just a requirement to keep connected to an increasingly attenuated causal chain. |
| 12524 | For the correct reference of complex ideas, we can only refer to experts [Locke] |
| Full Idea: We have nothing else to refer these our ideas of mixed modes to as standard, to which we would conform them, but the ideas of those who are thought to use those names in their most proper significations. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.32.12) | |
| A reaction: This is Putnam's thought about elm trees, that he uses the word 'elm' to refer to something the reference of which is fixed by experts on trees, and not by his ignorant self. |
| 14209 | Descriptive theories remain part of the theory of reference (with seven mild modifications) [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Description theories of reference are supposed to have been well and truly refuted. I think not: ..it is still tenable with my seven points, and part of the truth of reference [7: rigidity, egocentric, tokens, causal, imperfect, indeterminate, families]. | |
| From: David Lewis (Putnam's Paradox [1984], 'Glob Desc') | |
| A reaction: (The bit at the end refers to his seven points, on p.59). He calls his basic proposal 'causal descriptivism', incorporating his seven slight modifications of traditional descriptivism about reference. |
| 8420 | A proposition is a set of possible worlds where it is true [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I identify a proposition with the set of possible worlds where it is true. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causation [1973], p.193) | |
| A reaction: As it stands, I'm baffled by this. How can 'it is raining' be a set of possible worlds? I assume it expands to refer to the truth-conditions, among possibilities as well as actualities. 'It is raining' fits all worlds where it is raining. |
| 9654 | A proposition is a set of entire possible worlds which instantiate a particular property [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I identify propositions with certain properties - namely, with those that are instantiated only by entire possible worlds. Then if properties generally are the sets of their instances, a proposition is a set of possible worlds. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: I don't get this. How can the proposition that tomatoes are edible be an entire set of possible worlds? The proposition seems to be about tomatoes, and nothing else. Should we talk of 'possibilities', rather than of 'possible worlds'? |
| 15736 | A proposition is the property of being a possible world where it holds true [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I identify propositions with properties that are instantiated only by entire possible worlds. If properties are the sets of their instances, a proposition is a set of possible worlds. A proposition is the property of being a world where it holds. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: This is so far away from my concept of a proposition (as a truth-evaluable representational mental event) that I struggle to compute it. So the proposition that I am sitting here is the property of 'being the actual world'. Eh? |
| 15738 | Propositions can't have syntactic structure if they are just sets of worlds [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: If it is central to 'proposition' that there be quasi-syntactic structure, so that there are subject-predicate, or negative, or conjunctive, or quantified propositions, then sets of possible worlds will not do. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: He proposes 'more complicated set-theoretic constructions out of possibilia' instead. I am very much committed to propositions having quasi-syntactic structure. |
| 15991 | Since words are just conventional, we can represent our own ideas with any words we please [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Since sounds are voluntary and indifferent signs of any idea, a man may use what words he pleases to signify his own ideas to himself. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.09.02) | |
| A reaction: Evidently not in tune with Wittgenstein, but it is obvious that I could invent any word I like for my favourite temperature for tomato soup. |
| 8614 | A sophisticated principle of charity sometimes imputes error as well as truth [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Unlike principles of crude charity, sophisticated principles of charity call for imputations of error in the subject if he has lived in deceptive conditions. | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Cont of L') | |
| A reaction: This begs lots of questions about how you decide conditions are 'deceptive' if you have not yet embarked on your radical interpretation of the subject. Davidson's point still stands, that imputing truth must be the normal procedure. |
| 8615 | We need natural properties in order to motivate the principle of charity [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: We need natural properties, so that the principle of charity will impute a bias towards believing that things are green rather than grue, and towards a basic desire for long life, rather than long-life-unless-one-was-born-on-a-Monday.... | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Cont of L') | |
| A reaction: Lewis always seems to be approaching things from the wrong end. We don't need properties so that we can attribute charity, so that we can interpret. We interpret, because we can be charitable, because we all experience natural properties. |
| 15539 | Basic to pragmatics is taking a message in a way that makes sense of it [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The cardinal principle of pragmatics is that the right way to take what is said, if at all possible, is the way that makes sense of the message. | |
| From: David Lewis (Many, but almost one [1993], 'A better solution') | |
| A reaction: Thus when someone misuses a word, suggesting nonsense, we gloss over it, often without even mentioning it, because the underlying sense is obvious. A good argument for the existence of propositions. Lewis doesn't mention truth. |
| 4130 | There couldn't be a moral rule of which a man could not justly demand a reason [Locke] |
| Full Idea: There cannot any one moral rule be proposed, whereof a man may not justly demand a reason. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 1.03.04) | |
| A reaction: I am more with Locke than Williams here. One can demand reasons up to the point where no one can provide them. Then we look for plan B, which probably ought to be conservative. |
| 12495 | Pursuit of happiness is the highest perfection of intellectual nature [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.21.51) | |
| A reaction: A nice remark, in which the word 'intellectual' is particularly interesting. Locke is inclined to equate happiness with pleasure and the absence of pain. |
| 12541 | Morality can be demonstrated, because we know the real essences behind moral words [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Morality is capable of demonstration as well as mathematics, since the precise real essence of the things moral words stand for may be perfectly known, and so the congruity or incongruity of the things themselves be certainly discovered. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.11.16) | |
| A reaction: This is a rare case of Locke saying that we can know real essences (he apparently having said the same about triangles). I increasingly like the notion that real essences lead to true knowledge in every sphere of our activities, including the moral. |
| 12473 | We can demand a reason for any moral rule [Locke] |
| Full Idea: There cannot any one moral Rule be proposed, whereof a Man may not justly demand a Reason. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 1.03.04) | |
| A reaction: There may be some things which are indisputable duties or prohibitions, and yet people be quite bewildered when asked for the reason behind the rule. Loyalty, incest, courage. |
| 1386 | A concern for happiness is the inevitable result of consciousness [Locke] |
| Full Idea: A concern for happiness is the unavoidable concomitant of consciousness; that which is conscious of pleasure and pain, desiring that that self that is conscious should be happy. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.27.26) | |
| A reaction: It is an interesting question whether a being would be concerned with 'happiness' if they were conscious thinkers, but lacking pleasure and pain. Presumably they would desire eudaimonia - that their life go well, in some way. |
| 4019 | Things are good and evil only in reference to pleasure and pain [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Things then are good and evil only in reference to pleasure and pain. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.20.02) | |
| A reaction: This is presumably the seeds of utilitarianism, and is evidently at the core of empiricism. In "Gorgias" Socrates explained why it is wrong. |
| 12515 | Actions are virtuous if they are judged praiseworthy [Locke] |
| Full Idea: It is not thought strange that men everywhere should give the name of virtue to those actions which amongst them are judged praiseworthy. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.28.10) | |
| A reaction: Wrong. Being very successful in sport is considered praiseworthy, but not virtuous. We praise actions because they are virtuous, so the virtue cannot be constituted merely by the praise. |
| 19906 | All countries are in a mutual state of nature [Locke] |
| Full Idea: All commonwealths are in a state of Nature one with another. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 153) | |
| A reaction: A striking remark. It is easy to think that the state of nature no longer exists. International law attempts to rectify this, but diplomacy is much more like negotiations in nature than it is like obedience to laws. |
| 19882 | We are not created for solitude, but are driven into society by our needs [Locke] |
| Full Idea: God, having made man such a creature that, in His own judgement, it was not good for him to be alone, put him under strong obligations of necessity, convenience, and inclination, to drive him into society. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 077) | |
| A reaction: This is almost Aristotelian, apart from the individualistic assumption that we are 'driven' into society. The only time I see other people looking generally happy is when they are sitting around at leisure and talking to other people. |
| 19864 | In nature men can dispose of possessions and their persons in any way that is possible [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The estate all men are naturally in is perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the laws of nature. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 004) | |
| A reaction: Note that they have possessions, so property is not an invention of society, but something which society should protect. Presumably Locke thinks they could sell themselves into slavery, which Rousseau rejects. |
| 19865 | There is no subjection in nature, and all creatures of the same species are equal [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of Nature, are also equal one among another, without subordination or subjection. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 004) | |
| A reaction: The birds in my garden don't behave as if that were true. Physical strength is surely a natural inequality. |
| 19866 | The rational law of nature says we are all equal and independent, and should show mutual respect [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges everyone, and reason, which is that law, teaches mankind that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 006) | |
| A reaction: He adds that this is because we are all the property of God. Locke is more optimistic than Hobbes or Rousseau about this, since he thinks we have a natural obligation to be nice. |
| 19872 | The animals and fruits of the earth belong to mankind [Locke] |
| Full Idea: All the fruits the earth naturally produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as they are produced by the spontaneous hand of Nature. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 026) | |
| A reaction: Not a popular view among 21st century ecologists, I guess, but this remains the implicit belief of anyone who goes hunting in the woods, and our enclosed gardens seem to endorse the idea. |
| 19907 | There is a natural right to inheritance within a family [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Every man is born with a right before any other man, to inherit, with his brethren, his father's goods. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 190) | |
| A reaction: If a child is fully grown, they may well have drifted into a state of partial ownership of the goods of the parent, of which it would be hard then to deprive them. It is hard to see this as a natural right of tiny orphaned infants. |
| 19863 | Politics is the right to make enforceable laws to protect property and the state, for the common good [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Political power is the right of making laws, with penalties up to death, for the preserving of property, employing the force of community in the execution of such laws, in defence of the commonwealth, and only for the common good. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 003) | |
| A reaction: Since political power can be used for selfish corruption and genocide, this isn't very accurate, so I take it this is how power ought to be exercised! Notice that defence gets equal billing with his famous defence of property. |
| 5654 | The Second Treatise explores the consequences of the contractual view of the state [Locke, by Scruton] |
| Full Idea: In his second Treatise, Locke gave us perhaps the first extended account of the true logical consequences of Hobbes's contractual view of the state. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690]) by Roger Scruton - Short History of Modern Philosophy Ch.14 | |
| A reaction: The issue seems to boil down to an opposition between the Cartesian and the Aristotelian view of the individual, with Locke following Descartes. The alternative, endorsed by Hegel, which I prefer, is that the state is part of human nature. |
| 19888 | A society only begins if there is consent of all the individuals to join it [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The beginning of politic society depends upon the consent of the individuals to join into and make one society. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 106) | |
| A reaction: This is the dramatic new political idea (originating with Hobbes), that all of the members must (at some point) consent to the state. In practice we are all born into a state, so it is not clear what this means in real life. |
| 6702 | If anyone enjoys the benefits of government (even using a road) they give tacit assent to its laws [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Every man, that hath an possession, or enjoyment, of any part of the dominions of any government, doth thereby give his tacit consent, and is obliged to obedience to the laws, ..whether it be barely travelling on the highway. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 119), quoted by Gordon Graham - Eight Theories of Ethics Ch.8 | |
| A reaction: Locke's famous assertion of an unspoken and inescapable contract, to which we are all subject. Hume gave an effective reply (Idea 6703). Locke has a point though. The more you accept, the more obliged you are. I accept the law more as I get older. |
| 19909 | A politic society is created from a state of nature by a unanimous agreement [Locke] |
| Full Idea: That which makes the community, and brings men out of the loose state of Nature into one politic society, is the agreement that everyone has with the rest to incorporate and act as one body. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 211) | |
| A reaction: Geography usually keeps commonwealths in place once they have been established, but some of them become disfunctional hell holes because they are trapped in perpetual disagreement. |
| 19910 | A single will creates the legislature, which is duty-bound to preserve that will [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The essence and union of the society consisting in having one will; the legislative, when once established by the majority, has the declaring and, as it were, keeping of that will. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 212) | |
| A reaction: Not far from Rousseau's big idea, apart from the emphasis on the 'majority'. Rousseau reduced the role of the general will to preliminaries and basics, but wanted close to unanimity, so that everyone accepts being a subject, to government and law. |
| 19893 | Anyone who enjoys the benefits of a state has given tacit consent to be part of it [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Every man that hath any possession or enjoyment of any part of the dominions of any government doth thereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government, during such enjoyment. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 119) | |
| A reaction: I wondered at the age of about 18 whether I had given tacit consent to be a British citizen. Locke says you only have to travel freely down the highways to give consent! We are all free, of course, to apply for citizenship elsewhere. But Idea 19894. |
| 19894 | You can only become an actual member of a commonwealth by an express promise [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Nothing can make any man a subject or member of a commonwealth but his actually entering into it by positive engagement, and express promise and compact. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 122) | |
| A reaction: In practice the indigenous population never do this. But it a clear distinction for foreign residents in any country. States cannot induct resident foreigners into their army, or allow them to vote. |
| 19892 | Children are not born into citizenship of a state [Locke] |
| Full Idea: It is plain, by the practices of governments themselves, as well as by the laws of right reason, that a child is born a subject of no country nor government. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 118) | |
| A reaction: At what age do they become citizens, given that there is no induction ceremony? If a small British child were attacked overseas, we would expect the British government to defend its rights. |
| 19885 | Absolute monarchy is inconsistent with civil society [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Absolute monarchy, which by some men is counted for the only government in the world, is inconsistent with civil society, and so can be no form of civil government at all. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 090) | |
| A reaction: This is because citizens do not have a 'decisive' power to appeal for redress of injuries. Rousseau thought that there could be an absolute monarchy, as long as the general will agreed it, and its term of office could be brought to an end by the assembly. |
| 19886 | The idea that absolute power improves mankind is confuted by history [Locke] |
| Full Idea: He that thinks absolute power purifies men's blood, and corrects the baseness of human nature, need but read the history of this, or any other age, to be convinced to the contrary. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 092) | |
| A reaction: I can't imagine who proposed the view that Locke is attacking, but it will have been some real 17th century thinker. Attitudes to monarchy changed drastically in England, but Louis XIV was still ruling in France. |
| 19903 | Despotism is arbitrary power to kill, based neither on natural equality, nor any social contract [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Despotical power is an absolute, arbitrary power one man over another, to take away his life whenever he pleases; and this is a power which neither Nature gives, for it has made no such distinction between one man and another, nor compact can convey. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 172) | |
| A reaction: Colonies of seals, walruses and apes seem to display despotism, based on physical strength, though that is largely to do with mating. There could be such a compact, but Locke would regard it as invalid. |
| 19905 | People stripped of their property are legitimately subject to despotism [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Forfeiture gives despotical power to lords for their own benefit over those who are stripped of all property. ...Despotical power is over such as have no property at all. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 173) | |
| A reaction: Nasty! Shylock is stripped of his property by Venice, so these things happened. This is taking the significance of property a long way beyond its role at the beginning of Locke's book. Property is the start of society, but then becomes your passport. |
| 19904 | Legitimate prisoners of war are subject to despotism, because that continues the state of war [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Captives, taken in a just and lawful war, and such only, are subject to a despotical power, which, as it arises not from compact, so neither is it capable of any, but is the state of war continued. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 205) | |
| A reaction: How long after a war finishes is such despotism legitimate? What happened to the German prisoners in Russia in 1945? Locke defined despotism as the right to kill, but that is expressly contrary to the rules of war, look you. |
| 19895 | Even the legislature must be preceded by a law which gives it power to make laws [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of the legislative power, as the first and fundamental natural law which is to govern even the legislative. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 134) | |
| A reaction: I think Rousseau says that there cannot be a law which enables the general will to set up legislative powers. It just seems to be something which happens. Locke is threatened with an infinite regress. What legitimises the enabling law? |
| 19900 | The executive must not be the legislature, or they may exempt themselves from laws [Locke] |
| Full Idea: It may be too great temptation to human frailty, apt to grasp at power, for the same persons to have the power of making laws to also have in their hands the power to execute them, whereby they may exempt themselves. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 143) | |
| A reaction: The main principles of modern constitutions are devised to avoid corruption. If people were incorruptible (yeah, right) the world would presumably be run very differently, and rather more efficiently, like a good family. |
| 19902 | Any obstruction to the operation of the legislature can be removed forcibly by the people [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Having erect a legislative with the power of making laws, when they are hindered by any force from what is so necessary to society, and wherein the safety and preservation of the people consists, the people have a right to remove it by force. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 155) | |
| A reaction: I doubt if he was thinking of the French Revolution, but this will clearly have application to the English events of 1642. The Speaker of the Commons was held down in his chair in the 1620s, so that some legislation could be enacted. |
| 19908 | Rebelling against an illegitimate power is no sin [Locke] |
| Full Idea: It is plain that shaking off a power which force, and not right, hath set over any one, though it have the name of rebellion, yet it is no offence against God. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 196) | |
| A reaction: [He cites Hezekiah at 2 Kings 18.7] At this time the English Civil War was referred to as the 'Great Rebellion' (so this is an interesting and brave remark of Locke's), though few people would think that Charles I had illegitimate power. |
| 19911 | If legislators confiscate property, or enslave people, they are no longer owed obedience [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 222) | |
| A reaction: This might fit Louis XVI in 1788. Locke was certainly not averse to consideration the situations in which revolution might be justified. He was trying to be even-handed about 1642. Locke seems to think that without property you ARE a slave. |
| 19901 | The people have supreme power, to depose a legislature which has breached their trust [Locke] |
| Full Idea: There remains still in the people a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 149) | |
| A reaction: This seems to be the most important aspect of representative democracy. It is not the power of people to make decisions, but the power to get rid of bad rulers. |
| 19887 | Unanimous consent makes a united community, which is then ruled by the majority [Locke] |
| Full Idea: When any number of men have, by the consent of every individual, made a community, they have thereby made that community into one body, with a power to act as one body, which is only by the will and determination of the majority. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 096) | |
| A reaction: This seems to be presume democracy without discussion, although the formation of the community is by universal consent, which is the 'general will'. Rousseau has the constitution also made almost unanimously, not by a majority. |
| 19913 | A master forfeits ownership of slaves he abandons [Locke] |
| Full Idea: A master forfeits the dominion over his slaves whom he hath abandoned. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 237) | |
| A reaction: How often did slave owners take a day off, I wonder? Presumably slaves will take back their freedom, even if the masters haven't 'forfeited' their ownership, so Locke's point is fairly academic. |
| 19883 | Slaves captured in a just war have no right to property, so are not part of civil society [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Slave are captives taken in a just war, and by right of Nature subjected to the absolute dominion and arbitrary power of their masters. ...Being not capable of any property, they cannot in that state be considered any part of civil society. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 085) | |
| A reaction: If the test of citizenship is being capable of holding property, presumably children and mentally damaged people (including the very old) will also fail to qualify. I see no principled reason why slaves should not be allowed to vote. Note 'just' war. |
| 19870 | If you try to enslave me, you have declared war on me [Locke] |
| Full Idea: He who makes an attempt to enslave me thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 017) | |
| A reaction: So presumably actual slaves are in a state of permanent war with their owners. What of a woman who is enslaved by her husband? |
| 19871 | Freedom is not absence of laws, but living under laws arrived at by consent [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Liberty of man in society is to be under no other legislative power but that established by consent in the commonwealth. Freedom is not (as Filmer suggests) doing what you please while not tied by any laws. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 022) | |
| A reaction: That sounds plausible if the consent is unanimous, but a minority is not free if the laws made by a large majority are a sort of persecution. |
| 19880 | All value depends on the labour involved [Locke] |
| Full Idea: It is labour that puts the difference of value on everything. ...Whatever bread is worth more than acorns, wine than water, that is wholly owing to labour and industry. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 040) | |
| A reaction: In capitalism this is nonsense. Supply and demand fix all the values. Locke has slid from labour bestowing ownership to labour bestowing value. No one gets paid on the basis of how hard they work, except on piece rates. |
| 19884 | There is only a civil society if the members give up all of their natural executive rights [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Wherever any number of men so unite into one society as to quite every one his executive power of the law of Nature, and to resign it to the public, there and there only is a civil society. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 089) | |
| A reaction: This seems to mean that you must give up your active ('executive') natural rights, but not your passive ones (which are inviolable). |
| 19873 | We all own our bodies, and the work we do is our own [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Every man has a 'property' in his own 'person'. This nobody has any right to it but himself. The 'labour' of his body and the 'work' of his hands, we may say, are properly his. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 027) | |
| A reaction: He doesn't have any grounds for this claim. Why doesn't a cow own its body? He slides from my ownership of my laborious efforts to my ownership of what I have been working on. I can't acquire your car by servicing it. |
| 6580 | Locke (and Marx) held that ownership of objects is a natural relation, based on the labour put into it [Locke, by Fogelin] |
| Full Idea: Locke thought that property ownership reflected a natural relationship; for him the primordial notion of the ownership of an object is a function of the labour that one puts into it; Marx held a similar view. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690]) by Robert Fogelin - Walking the Tightrope of Reason Ch.3 | |
| A reaction: Marx would have to think that, in order to believe that capitalist ownership of the means of production used by the workers was a fundamental injustice. A deeper Marxism might see the whole idea of 'ownership' as a capitalist (or feudal) conspiracy. |
| 20520 | Locke says 'mixing of labour' entitles you to land, as well as nuts and berries [Wolff,J on Locke] |
| Full Idea: The great advantage of Locke's 'labour-mixing' argument is that it seems it can justify the appropriation of land, as well as nuts and berries. | |
| From: comment on John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690]) by Jonathan Wolff - An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Rev) 5 'Locke' | |
| A reaction: The argument is dubious at best, and plausibly downright wicked. How much labour achieves ownership? What of previous people who worked the land but never thought to claim 'ownership'? Suppose I do more labour than you on 'your' land? |
| 19875 | A man's labour gives ownership rights - as long as there are fair shares for all [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The 'labour' being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 027) | |
| A reaction: The qualification at the end is a crucial (and problematic) addition to his theory. What is the situation when an area of wilderness is 98% owned? What of the single source of water? Who gets the best parts? Getting there first seems crucial. |
| 19874 | If a man mixes his labour with something in Nature, he thereby comes to own it [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Whatever a man removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined something to it that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. ...This excludes the common right of other men. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 027) | |
| A reaction: This is Locke's famous Labour Theory of Value. Does picking it up count as labour? Putting a fence round it? Paying someone else to do the labour? Do bees own their honey? Settlers in the wilderness own nothing on day one? |
| 19877 | Fountain water is everyone's, but a drawn pitcher of water has an owner [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Though the water running in the fountain be every one's, yet who can doubt but that in the pitcher is his only who drew it out? | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 029) | |
| A reaction: This would certainly be the normal consensus of a community, as long as there is plenty of water. The strong and fit gatherers get all the best firewood, so I suppose that is just tough on the others. |
| 19876 | Gathering natural fruits gives ownership; the consent of other people is irrelevant [Locke] |
| Full Idea: If the first gathering of acorns and apples made them not a man's, nothing else could. ...Will anyone say he had no right to them because he had not the consent of all mankind to make them his? | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 028) | |
| A reaction: The ideas of Nozick are all in this sentence. Does this idea justify the enclosure of common land? The first member of the community who thought of Locke's labour theory had a huge head's start. Liberal individualism rampant. |
| 19878 | Mixing labour with a thing bestows ownership - as long as the thing is not wasted [Locke] |
| Full Idea: How far has God given us all things 'to enjoy'? As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of his life before it spoils, so much he may by his labour fix a property in. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 031) | |
| A reaction: This adds a very different value to Locke's theory, because the person seems to be answerable to fellow citizens if they harvest important resources and then waste them. Where do luxuries fit in? |
| 12548 | It is certain that injustice requires property, since it is a violation of the right to property [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Where there is no property there is no injustice, is a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid. For the idea of a property, being a right to any thing, and the idea of injustice being the invasion or violation of that right. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.03.18) | |
| A reaction: This is an extraordinarily narrow notion of justice, and one which entirely depends on human convention. Does he not think that rape, for example, is an injustice? How could he label what is wrong with such a crime? |
| 19898 | Soldiers can be commanded to die, but not to hand over their money [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The sergeant that can command a soldier to march up to the mouth of a cannon ...cannot command that soldier to give him one penny of his money. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 139) | |
| A reaction: A very nice and accurate illustration of a principle which runs so deep that it does indeed look like a basis of society. |
| 19879 | A man owns land if he cultivates it, to the limits of what he needs [Locke] |
| Full Idea: As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 032) | |
| A reaction: Industrial farming rather changes this picture. Does the man himself decide how much he can use the product of, or do the neighbours tell him where his boundaries must be? 'Reason not the need', as King Lear said. What if he stops cultivating it? |
| 19881 | The aim of law is not restraint, but to make freedom possible [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom, for where there is no law there is no freedom. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 057) | |
| A reaction: This fits both the liberal and the communitarian view of the matter. Talk of 'freedom' is commonplace in England by this date, where it is hardly mention 60 years earler. John Lilburne almost single-handedly brought this about. |
| 19868 | It is only by a law of Nature that we can justify punishing foreigners [Locke] |
| Full Idea: If by the law of Nature every man hath not a power to punish offences against [the state], as he soberly judges the case to require, I see not how the magistrates of any community can punish an alien of another country. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 009) | |
| A reaction: This is a nice point. You can't expect to be above the law in a foreign country, but you have entered into no social contract, unless visiting a place is a sort of contract. Intrusions into air space are often accidental visits. |
| 19867 | Reparation and restraint are the only justifications for punishment [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Reparation and restraint are the only two reasons why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punishment. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 008) | |
| A reaction: But by 'reparation' does be mean retribution, or compensation? He doesn't rule out capital punishment, but that may qualify as maximum restraint. |
| 19912 | Self-defence is natural, but not the punishment of superiors by inferiors [Locke] |
| Full Idea: It is natural for us to defend life and limb, but that an inferior should punish a superior is against nature. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 236) | |
| A reaction: He is obliquely referring to the execution of Charles I, even though he may have been legitimately overthrown. I wonder what exactly he means by 'superior' and 'inferior'. An idea from another age! |
| 19869 | Punishment should make crime a bad bargain, leading to repentance and deterrence [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Each transgression may be punished to that degree, and with so much severity, as will suffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent, and terrify others from doing the like. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 012) | |
| A reaction: I gather that the consensus among experts is that the biggest deterrence is a high likelihood of being caught, rather than the severity of the punishment. |
| 19899 | The consent of the people is essential for any tax [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The legislative power must not raise taxes on the property of the people without the consent of the people given by themselves or their deputies. | |
| From: John Locke (Second Treatise of Government [1690], 142) | |
| A reaction: He will be thinking of the resistance to Ship Money in the 1630s, which was a step towards civil war. The people of Boston, Ma, may have read this sentence 80 years later! |
| 15997 | We are so far from understanding the workings of natural bodies that it is pointless to even try [Locke] |
| Full Idea: As to a perfect science of natural bodies (not to mention spiritual beings) we are, I think, so far from being capable of any such thing, that I conclude it lost labour to seek after it. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.03.28) | |
| A reaction: It seems to me that Locke has an excellent grasp of the nature of science, except for his extraordinary and misjudged pessimism about what it might achieve. |
| 15978 | I take 'matter' to be a body, excluding its extension in space and its shape [Locke] |
| Full Idea: 'Matter' is a partial and more confused conception, it seeming to me to be used for the substance and solidity of body, without taking in its extension and figure. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.10.15) | |
| A reaction: The 'without taking in' I take to mean that matter is an abstraction (of the psychological kind) from the character of physical bodies. Matter does not exist without having an extension and figure. |
| 15170 | We distinguish species by their nominal essence, not by their real essence [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Our ranking, and distinguishing natural substances into species consists in the nominal essences the mind makes, and not in the real essences to be found in things themselves. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.06.11) | |
| A reaction: Note that, as far as I can see, Locke never denies the existence of real essences, or even that we might occasionally know them. He is here merely describing, fairly accurately, I think, his empiricist view of how these categories have come about. |
| 15993 | If we observe total regularity, there must be some unknown law and relationships controlling it [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The things that, as far as observation reaches, we constantly find to proceed regularly, do act by a law set them; but yet by a law that we know not; ..their connections and dependencies being not discoverable in our ideas, we need experimental knowledge. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.03.29) | |
| A reaction: In Idea 15992 he expressed scepticism about the amount of regularity that is actually found, with many so-called 'kinds' being quite irregular in their members. I agree. The only true natural kinds are the totally regular ones. Why a 'law'? |
| 15562 | Causation is a general relation derived from instances of causal dependence [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Causation is the ancestral of causal dependence: event c causes event e iff either e depends on c, or e depends on an intermediate event which in turn depends on c, or.... | |
| From: David Lewis (Events [1986], I) | |
| A reaction: This is Lewis making sure that we don't postulate some huge bogus thing called 'Causation' which is supposed to be in charge of Nature. Good point. |
| 15555 | Explaining match lighting in general is like explaining one lighting of a match [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Explaining why struck matches light in general is not so very different from explaining why some particular struck match lit. ...We may generalize modestly, without laying claim to universality. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causal Explanation [1986], IV) | |
| A reaction: A suggestive remark, since particular causation and general causation seem far apart, but Lewis suggests that the needs of explanation bring them together. Lawlike and unlawlike explanations? |
| 12497 | Causes are the substances which have the powers to produce action [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Power being the source from whence all action proceeds, the substances wherein these powers are, when they exert this power into act, are called 'causes'. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.22.11) | |
| A reaction: This is causes as actual entities, rather than as conjunctions of events. Personally I find this view of Locke's very congenial, no matter how unfashionable it may be. |
| 8405 | A theory of causation should explain why cause precedes effect, not take it for granted [Lewis, by Field,H] |
| Full Idea: Lewis thinks it is a major defect in a theory of causation that it builds in the condition that the time of the cause precede that of the effect: that cause precedes effect is something we ought to explain (which his counterfactual theory claims to do). | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Causation [1973]) by Hartry Field - Causation in a Physical World | |
| A reaction: My immediate reaction is that the chances of explaining such a thing are probably nil, and that we might as well just accept the direction of causation as a given. Even philosophers balk at the question 'why doesn't time go backwards?' |
| 8427 | I reject making the direction of causation axiomatic, since that takes too much for granted [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: One might stipulate that a cause must always precede its effect, but I reject this solution. It won't solve the problem of epiphenomena, it rejects a priori any backwards causation, and it trivializes defining time-direction through causation. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causation [1973], p.203) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] Not strong arguments, I would say. Maybe apparent causes are never epiphenomenal. Maybe backwards causation is impossible. Maybe we must use time to define causal direction, and not vice versa. |
| 8433 | There are few traces of an event before it happens, but many afterwards [Lewis, by Horwich] |
| Full Idea: Lewis claims that most events are over-determined by subsequent states of the world, but not by their history. That is, the future of every event contains many independent traces of its occurrence, with little prior indication that it would happen. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Counterfactual Dependence and Time's Arrow [1979]) by Paul Horwich - Lewis's Programme p.209 | |
| A reaction: Lewis uses this asymmetry to deduce the direction of causation, and hence the direction of time. Most people (including me, I think) would prefer to use the axiomatic direction of time to deduce directions of causation. Lewis was very wicked. |
| 10392 | It is just individious discrimination to pick out one cause and label it as 'the' cause [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: We sometimes single out one among all the causes of some event and call it 'the' cause. ..We may select the abnormal causes, or those under human control, or those we deem good or bad, or those we want to talk about. This is invidious discrimination. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causation [1973]) | |
| A reaction: This is the standard view expressed by Mill - presumably the obvious empiricist line. But if we specify 'the pre-conditions' for an event, we can't just mention ANY fact prior to the effect - there is obvious relevance. So why not for 'the' cause as well? |
| 8419 | The modern regularity view says a cause is a member of a minimal set of sufficient conditions [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: In present-day regularity analyses, a cause is defined (roughly) as any member of any minimal set of actual conditions that are jointly sufficient, given the laws, for the existence of the effect. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causation [1973], p.193) | |
| A reaction: This is the view Lewis is about to reject. It seem to summarise the essence of the Mackie INUS theory. This account would make the presence of oxygen a cause of almost every human event. |
| 15551 | Ways of carving causes may be natural, but never 'right' [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: There is no one right way - though there may be more or less natural ways - of carving up a causal history. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causal Explanation [1986], I) | |
| A reaction: This invites a distinction between the 'natural' causes and the 'real' causes. Presumably if any causes were 'real', they would have a better claim to be 'right'. Is an earthquake the 'real' (correct?) cause of a tsunami? |
| 15552 | We only pick 'the' cause for the purposes of some particular enquiry. [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Disagreement about 'the' cause is only disagreement about which part of the causal history is most salient for the purposes of some particular inquiry. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causal Explanation [1986], I) | |
| A reaction: I don't believe this. In the majority of cases I see the cause of an event, without having any interest in any particular enquiry. It is just so obvious that there isn't even a disagreement. Maybe there is only one sensible enquiry. |
| 8421 | Regularity analyses could make c an effect of e, or an epiphenomenon, or inefficacious, or pre-empted [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: In the regularity analysis of causes, instead of c causing e, c might turn out to be an effect of e, or an epiphenomenon, or an inefficacious effect of a genuine cause, or a pre-empted cause (by some other cause) of e. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causation [1973], p.194) | |
| A reaction: These are Lewis's reasons for rejecting the general regularity account, in favour of his own particular counterfactual account. It is unlikely that c would be regularly pre-empted or epiphenomenal. If we build time's direction in, it won't be an effect. |
| 17525 | The counterfactual view says causes are necessary (rather than sufficient) for their effects [Lewis, by Bird] |
| Full Idea: The Humean idea, developed by Lewis, is that rather than being sufficient for their effects, causes are (counterfactual) necessary for their effects. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Causation [1973]) by Alexander Bird - Causation and the Manifestation of Powers p.162 |
| 17524 | Lewis has basic causation, counterfactuals, and a general ancestral (thus handling pre-emption) [Lewis, by Bird] |
| Full Idea: Lewis's basic account has a basic causal relation, counterfactual dependence, and the general causal relation is the ancestral of this basic one. ...This is motivated by counterfactual dependence failing to be general because of the pre-emption problem. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Causation [1973]) by Alexander Bird - Causation and the Manifestation of Powers p.161 | |
| A reaction: It is so nice when you struggle for ages with a topic, and then some clever person summarises it clearly for you. |
| 8397 | Counterfactual causation implies all laws are causal, which they aren't [Tooley on Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Some counterfactuals are based on non-causal laws, such as Newton's Third Law of Motion. 'If no force one way, then no force the other'. Lewis's counterfactual analysis implies that one force causes the other, which is not the case. | |
| From: comment on David Lewis (Causation [1973]) by Michael Tooley - Causation and Supervenience 5.2 | |
| A reaction: So what exactly does 'cause' my punt to move forwards? Basing causal laws on counterfactual claims looks to me like putting the cart before the horse. |
| 8423 | My counterfactual analysis applies to particular cases, not generalisations [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: My (counterfactual) analysis is meant to apply to causation in particular cases; it is not an analysis of causal generalizations. Those presumably quantify over particulars, but it is hard to match natural language to the quantifiers. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causation [1973], p.195) | |
| A reaction: What authority could you have for asserting a counterfactual claim, if you only had one observation? Isn't the counterfactual claim the hallmark of a generalisation? For one case, 'if not-c, then not-e' is just a speculation. |
| 8426 | One event causes another iff there is a causal chain from first to second [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: One event is the cause of another iff there exists a causal chain leading from the first to the second. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causation [1973], p.200) | |
| A reaction: It will be necessary to both explain and identify a 'chain'. Some chains are extremely tenuous (Alexander could stop a barrel of beer). Go back a hundred years, and the cause of any present event is everything back then. |
| 15553 | Causal dependence is counterfactual dependence between events [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: I take causal dependence to be counterfactual dependence, of a suitably back-tracking sort, between distinct events. | |
| From: David Lewis (Causal Explanation [1986], I) | |
| A reaction: He quotes Hume in support. 'Counterfactual dependence' strikes me as too vague, or merely descriptive, for the job of explanation. 'If...then' is a logical relationship; what is it in nature that justifies the dependency? |
| 8608 | Counterfactuals 'backtrack' if a different present implies a different past [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A counterfactual can be said to 'backtrack' if it can be said that if the present were different a different past would have led up to it (rather than if the present were different, the same past would have had a different outcome). | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Dup,Sup,Div') | |
| A reaction: A nice clear definition of a concept which is important in Lewis's analysis of causation. In the current context he is concerned with elucidation of determinism and materialism. I would say (intuitively) that all counterfactuals backtrack. |
| 8584 | Causal counterfactuals must avoid backtracking, to avoid epiphenomena and preemption [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: My counterfactual analysis of causation needs counterfactuals that avoid backtracking; else the analysis faces fatal counterexamples involving epiphenomenal side-effects or cases of causal preemption. | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Laws and C') | |
| A reaction: The concept of true epiphenomena (absolutely no causal powers) strikes me as bogus. |
| 9659 | Causation is when at the closest world without the cause, there is no effect either [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: If it is the case at world W that if event C had not occurred, E would not have occurred either, then the counterfactual means that at the closest worlds to W at which C does not occur, E does not occur either. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.6) | |
| A reaction: This is a very Humean account, though updated, which sees nothing more to causation than transworld regularities. To me that is just describing the evidence for causation, not giving an account of it (even if the latter is impossible). |
| 8581 | Physics discovers laws and causal explanations, and also the natural properties required [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Physics must not just discover laws and causal explanations. In putting forward as comprehensive theories that recognise only a limited range of natural properties, physics proposes inventories of the natural properties instantiated in our world. | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Min Mat') | |
| A reaction: Physics does this job extremely well, offering things like force, spin, charge that are the building blocks for their theories. There is metaphysics at the heart of physics, unavoidably. |
| 15727 | Physics aims for a list of natural properties [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Physics aspires to give an inventory of natural properties. | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Dup,Sup,Div') | |
| A reaction: The sort of beautifully simple remark by which philosophers ought to earn a good living in the intellectual community. Come on physicists - this is all we want! Presumably the inventory will include an account of how they all work. |
| 9409 | Laws are the best axiomatization of the total history of world events or facts [Lewis, by Mumford] |
| Full Idea: The Mill-Ramsey-Lewis theory takes laws to be axioms (or theorems) of the best possible systematizations of the world's total history, where such a history is a history of events or facts. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (Psychophysical and theoretical identifications [1972]) by Stephen Mumford - Laws in Nature 1.3 |
| 9423 | If simplicity and strength are criteria for laws of nature, that introduces a subjective element [Mumford on Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Lewis's simplicity and strength criteria introduce an element of subjectivity into the laws, because the best system seems to be determined by what we take to be simple and strong in a system. | |
| From: comment on David Lewis (Psychophysical and theoretical identifications [1972]) by Stephen Mumford - Laws in Nature 3.5 | |
| A reaction: [Mumford cites Armstrong 1983:67 for this] |
| 9424 | A number of systematizations might tie as the best and most coherent system [Mumford on Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Since the best system view is a coherence theory, the possibility could not be ruled out that a number of different systematizations of the same history might be tied for first place as equally best. | |
| From: comment on David Lewis (Psychophysical and theoretical identifications [1972]) by Stephen Mumford - Laws in Nature 3.5 | |
| A reaction: [Mumord cites Armstrong 1983:70] Personally I am a fan of coherence theories, and this problem doesn't bother me. |
| 9419 | A law of nature is a general axiom of the deductive system that is best for simplicity and strength [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A contingent generalization is a law of nature if and only if it appears as a theorem (or axiom) in each of the true deductive systems that achieves a best combination of simplicity and strength. | |
| From: David Lewis (Counterfactuals [1973], 3.3) |
| 9425 | Lewis later proposed the axioms at the intersection of the best theories (which may be few) [Mumford on Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Later Lewis said we must choose between the intersection of the axioms of the tied best systems. He chose for laws the axioms that are in all the tied systems (but then there may be few or no axioms in the intersection). | |
| From: comment on David Lewis (Subjectivist's Guide to Objective Chance [1980], p.124) by Stephen Mumford - Laws in Nature |
| 8611 | A law of nature is any regularity that earns inclusion in the ideal system [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: A law of nature is any regularity that earns inclusion in the ideal system (or, in case of ties, in every ideal system). | |
| From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Laws and C') | |
| A reaction: Reminiscent of Peirce's view of truth (Idea 7661). This wouldn't seem to eliminate the danger of regularities with underlying causes ending up as laws (day causes night). Or very trivial regularities ending up as laws. |
| 12550 | If we knew the minute mechanics of hemlock, we could predict that it kills men [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Did we know the mechanical affections of the particles of rhubarb, hemlock, opium and a man, ...we should be able to tell beforehand that rhubarb will purge, hemlock kill, and opium make a man sleep. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.03.25) | |
| A reaction: Locke was adamant that we could never know such things, but I take it that we now do know them, and that this is precisely what science aims at. I'm beginning to think that the entire aim of science is to predict nature. |
| 15966 | Boyle and Locke believed corpuscular structures necessitate their powers of interaction [Locke, by Alexander,P] |
| Full Idea: Both Boyle and Locke believe in necessary connections in nature; full knowledge of a corpuscular structure would enable us to deduce, without trial, particular powers of interaction. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by Peter Alexander - Ideas, Qualities and Corpuscles 03.3 | |
| A reaction: I take this view to be correct. Is the necessity analytic, because that is how you define the 'structures'? If not, what is the basis for the claim? |
| 15984 | The corpuscular hypothesis is the best explanation of the necessary connection and co-existence of powers [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Human understanding is scarce able to substitute better than the corpuscularian hypothesis in an explication of the qualities of bodies, which will afford us a fuller and clearer discovery of the necessary connection and co-existence of the powers. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.03.16) | |
| A reaction: [considerably reworded] Locke is committed to natural necessities, in a way entirely rejected by Hume. The picture given in this remark perfectly embodies scientific essentialism, though elsewhere Locke is more cautious. |
| 15950 | We will only understand substance when we know the necessary connections between powers and qualities [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Which ever hypothesis be clearest and truest, ...our knowledge concerning corporeal substances, will be very little advanced.. , till we are made see, what qualities and powers of bodies have a necessary connection or repugnancy one with another. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.03.16) | |
| A reaction: A part from the emphasis on powers, this sounds a bit like Armstrong's account, that laws are the necessary connections between properties. It is scientific essentialism because Locke expects researchers to discover this stuff. |
| 7713 | We identify substances by supposing that groups of sensations arise from an essence [Locke] |
| Full Idea: We come to have the ideas of particular sorts of substance, by collecting such combinations of simple ideas as are by observation of men's senses taken notice of to exist together, and are supposed to flow from the unknown essence of that substance. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.23.03) | |
| A reaction: Locke is notoriously somewhat ambiguous and unclear about some of his views, but this remark seems to make him the father of modern scientific essentialism. Note that this is an empiricist happily referring to an unperceived best explanation. |
| 12545 | Other spirits may exceed us in knowledge, by knowing the inward constitution of things [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Other spirits, who see and know the nature and inward constitution of things, how much must they exceed us in knowledge? | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.03.06) | |
| A reaction: I take it that Locke was describing his own posterity, without realising it. It seems to me that modern physics has reached a place which Locke firmly pronounced impossible for human beings, and it has revealed many 'inward constitutions'. |
| 4398 | An event causes another just if the second event would not have happened without the first [Lewis, by Psillos] |
| Full Idea: Lewis gives an account of causation in terms of counterfactual conditionals (roughly, an event c causes an event e iff if c had not happened then e would not have happened either). | |
| From: report of David Lewis (works [1973]) by Stathis Psillos - Causation and Explanation Intro | |
| A reaction: This feels wrong to me. It is a version of Humean constant conjunction, but counterfactuals are too much a feature of our minds, and not sufficiently a feature of the world, to do this job. Tricky. |
| 4795 | Lewis's account of counterfactuals is fine if we know what a law of nature is, but it won't explain the latter [Cohen,LJ on Lewis] |
| Full Idea: Lewis can elucidate the logic of counterfactuals on the assumption that you are not at all puzzled about what a law of nature is. But if you are puzzled about this, it cannot contribute anything towards resolving your puzzlement. | |
| From: comment on David Lewis (Causation [1973]) by L. Jonathan Cohen - The Problem of Natural Laws p.219 | |
| A reaction: This seems like a penetrating remark. The counterfactual theory is wrong, partly because it is epistemological instead of ontological, and partly because it refuses to face the really difficult problem, of what is going on out there. |
| 9426 | The world is just a vast mosaic of little matters of local particular fact [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: The world is a vast mosaic of local matters of particular fact, just one little thing and then another. | |
| From: David Lewis (Introduction to Philosophical Papers II [1986]) | |
| A reaction: Basing laws on this picture is what Lewis calls 'Humean Supervenience'. |
| 12484 | Motion is just change of distance between two things [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Motion is nothing but change of distance between two things. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.13.14) | |
| A reaction: If a thing moved steadily relative to other objects, and we then removed all other objects in the universe, would it still be moving? |
| 15986 | Boyle and Locke suspect forces of being occult [Locke, by Alexander,P] |
| Full Idea: I believe that both Boyle and Locke were suspicious of forces, regarding them as occult. | |
| From: report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by Peter Alexander - Ideas, Qualities and Corpuscles 7 | |
| A reaction: I take this to be key difference between these two and Leibniz, with the latter on the side of the angels. |
| 16685 | An insurmountable force in a body keeps our hands apart when we handle it [Locke] |
| Full Idea: The bodies which we daily handle make us perceive that they do by an insurmountable force hinder the approach of the parts of our hands that press them. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.04.01) | |
| A reaction: This is interesting for a rare use of the word 'force' by Locke. I like the empiricist approach to these things, of actually contemplating handling physical objects. Empiricism keeps the feet of philosophy firmly on the ground. |
| 15980 | We can locate the parts of the universe, but not the whole thing [Locke] |
| Full Idea: We have no idea of the place of the universe, though we can of all the parts of it. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.13.10) | |
| A reaction: Locke evidently agrees with the Leibniz view of space as relative, rather than with Newton's absolute view. …But see Idea 15981. |
| 9666 | It is quite implausible that the future is unreal, as that would terminate everything [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: It is hard to believe that any philosopher means it when they say the future is unreal. If anyone is right that there is no future, that moment is their last, and it is the end of everything. | |
| From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 4.2) | |
| A reaction: A bit simplistic. I might say 'there will be a future time, but it doesn't exist now'. That's the peculiar thing about time. If I say New York doesn't exist, then clearly I can't visit it. The London 2012 Olympic Stadium is going to exist. |
| 23019 | The interesting time travel is when personal and external time come apart [Lewis, by Baron/Miller] |
| Full Idea: Lewis says a journey only counts as interesting time travel if there is a disparity between personal time and external time. …It is also necessary that the person at the beginning of the journey is the same as the person at the end of the journey. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (The paradoxes of time travel [1976]) by Baron,S/Miller,K - Intro to the Philosophy of Time | |
| A reaction: Other cases would presumably be the whole of time accelerating or slowing, or going into reverse. |
| 23021 | Lewis said it might just be that travellers to the past can't kill their grandfathers [Lewis, by Baron/Miller] |
| Full Idea: Lewis denied that the grandfather paradox makes time travel impossible. Time travel does not entail that it is possible to kill your grandfather. Maybe the traveller fails in their attempt every time they try to do it. | |
| From: report of David Lewis (The paradoxes of time travel [1976]) by Baron,S/Miller,K - Intro to the Philosophy of Time 8.2 | |
| A reaction: The problem with this answer is that killing the grandfather is only an extreme case of making any change in the past which ripples forward into the present. Virtually all changes by the time traveller would be impossible (though not contradictory). |
| 12486 | An 'instant' is where we perceive no succession, and is the time of a single idea [Locke] |
| Full Idea: A part of duration wherein we perceive no succession, is that which we may call an 'instant'; and is that which takes up the time of only one idea in our minds. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.14.10) | |
| A reaction: Given that the present appears to have zero duration (if it is where past and future meet), then this strikes me as a pretty accurate account of what we mean by an instant. |
| 12487 | We can never show that two successive periods of time were equal [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Two successive lengths of duration, however measured, can never be demonstrated to be equal. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.14.21) | |
| A reaction: Nice thought. You can't lay the durations next to one another, the way you can lengths. You can only count the clock ticks, but not be sure whether their speed remained constant. |
| 12567 | It is inconceivable that unthinking matter could produce intelligence [Locke] |
| Full Idea: It is as impossible to conceive that ever bare incogitative matter should produce a thinking intelligent being, as that nothing should of itself produce matter. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.10.10) | |
| A reaction: This is still a strongly intuitive objection that some people have to materialistic evolution. If you don't think the mind can be reduced to the physical, you still have this problem. You'll probably have to concoct an idea called 'emergence'. |
| 12570 | The finite and dependent should obey the supreme and infinite [Locke] |
| Full Idea: It is certain that the inferior, finite and dependent is under an obligation to obey the supreme and infinite. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.13.03) | |
| A reaction: Locke's liberal politics has gradually helped to undermine this view. Once an inferior and dependent person owns some property, they acquire rights and do not have to submit to anyone in that respect. Modern people would defy God if they met Him. |
| 12565 | God has given us no innate idea of himself [Locke] |
| Full Idea: God has given us no innate idea of himself. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.10.01) | |
| A reaction: This is rejection of Descartes' 'Trademark Argument' (Idea 2274). It is consistent with Locke's general assault on all innate ideas, as you might expect from an empiricist. |
| 12566 | We exist, so there is Being, which requires eternal being [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Everyone's certain knowledge assures him that he is something that actually exists. ...Therefore there is some real Being, and since non-entity cannot produce any real being, it is an evident demonstration that from Eternity there has been something. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.10.03) | |
| A reaction: This is a cosmological proof, deriving God as a necessary precondition from the observation that something exists. It is similar to, but not as good as, Aquinas's Third Way (Idea 1431). |
| 12571 | If miracles aim at producing belief, it is plausible that their events are very unusual [Locke] |
| Full Idea: Where such supernatural events are suitable to ends aim'd at by him who has the power to change the course of nature, they may be fitter to procure belief by how much more they are beyond or contrary to ordinary observation. | |
| From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.16.13) | |
| A reaction: On this occasion there is flat disagreement with Hume, who produced a famous objection to the whole idea of miracles. Locke is struggling here, since he is defending events which are totally contrary to the rest of his epistemology. |