108 ideas
| 12926 | Wisdom is the science of happiness [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: Wisdom is the science of happiness. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1690.03.23) | |
| A reaction: That probably comes down to common sense, or Aristotle's 'phronesis'. I take wisdom to involve understanding, as well as the quest for happiness. |
| 12903 | Wise people have fewer acts of will, because such acts are linked together [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: The wiser one is, the fewer separate acts of will one has and the more one's views and acts of will are comprehensive and linked together. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.04.12) | |
| A reaction: [letter to Landgrave, about Arnauld] It is unusual to find a philosopher who actually tries to analyse the nature of wisdom, instead of just paying lipservice to it. I take Leibniz to be entirely right here. He equates wisdom with rational behaviour. |
| 12914 | Metaphysics is geometrical, resting on non-contradiction and sufficient reason [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: I claim to give metaphysics geometric demonstrations, assuming only the principle of contradiction (or else all reasoning becomes futile), and that nothing exists without a reason, or that every truth has an a priori proof, from the concept of terms. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14 XI) | |
| A reaction: For the last bit, see Idea 12910. This idea is the kind of huge optimism about metaphysic which got it a bad name after Kant, and in modern times. I'm optimistic about metaphysics, but certainly not about 'geometrical demonstrations' of it. |
| 10237 | Coherence is a primitive, intuitive notion, not reduced to something formal [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: I take 'coherence' to be a primitive, intuitive notion, not reduced to something formal, and so I do not venture a rigorous definition of it. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 4.8) | |
| A reaction: I agree strongly with this. Best to talk of 'the space of reasons', or some such. Rationality extends far beyond what can be formally defined. Coherence is the last court of appeal in rational thought. |
| 12915 | Definitions can only be real if the item is possible [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: Definitions to my mind are real, when one knows that the thing defined is possible; otherwise they are only nominal, and one must not rely on them. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14 XI) | |
| A reaction: It is interesting that things do not have to actual to have real definitions. For Leibniz, what is possible will exist in the mind of God. For me what is possible will exist in the potentialities of the powers of what is actual. |
| 10204 | An 'implicit definition' gives a direct description of the relations of an entity [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: An 'implicit definition' characterizes a structure or class of structures by giving a direct description of the relations that hold among the places of the structure. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], Intro) | |
| A reaction: This might also be thought of as a 'functional definition', since it seems to say what the structure or entity does, rather than give the intrinsic characteristics that make its relations and actions possible. |
| 12910 | The predicate is in the subject of a true proposition [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: In a true proposition the concept of the predicate is always present in the subject. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14 X) | |
| A reaction: This sounds very like the Kantian notion of an analytic truth, but Leibniz is applying it to all truths. So Socrates must contain the predicate of running as part of his nature (or essence?), if 'Socrates runs' is to be true. |
| 19333 | A truth is just a proposition in which the predicate is contained within the subject [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: In every true affirmative proposition, necessary or contingent, universal or particular, the concept of the predicate is in a sense included in that of the subject; the predicate is present in the subject; or else I do not know what truth is. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14) | |
| A reaction: Why did he qualify this with "in a sense"? This is referred to as the 'concept containment theory of truth'. This is an odd view of the subject. If the truth is 'Peter fell down stairs', we don't usually think the concept of Peter contains such things. |
| 10206 | Modal operators are usually treated as quantifiers [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: It is common now, and throughout the history of philosophy, to interpret modal operators as quantifiers. This is an analysis of modality in terms of ontology. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], Intro) |
| 10252 | The Axiom of Choice seems to license an infinite amount of choosing [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: If the Axiom of Choice says we can choose one member from each of a set of non-empty sets and put the chosen elements together in a set, this licenses the constructor to do an infinite amount of choosing. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 6.3) | |
| A reaction: This is one reason why the Axiom was originally controversial, and still is for many philosophers. |
| 10208 | Axiom of Choice: some function has a value for every set in a given set [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: One version of the Axiom of Choice says that for every set A of nonempty sets, there is a function whose domain is A and whose value, for every a ∈ A, is a member of a. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 1) |
| 10207 | Anti-realists reject set theory [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Anti-realists reject set theory. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], Intro) | |
| A reaction: That is, anti-realists about mathematical objects. I would have thought that one could accept an account of sets as (say) fictions, which provided interesting models of mathematics etc. |
| 10259 | The two standard explanations of consequence are semantic (in models) and deductive [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The two best historical explanations of consequence are the semantic (model-theoretic), and the deductive versions. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 7.2) | |
| A reaction: Shapiro points out the fictionalists are in trouble here, because the first involves commitment to sets, and the second to the existence of deductions. |
| 10257 | Intuitionism only sanctions modus ponens if all three components are proved [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: In some intuitionist semantics modus ponens is not sanctioned. At any given time there is likely to be a conditional such that it and its antecedent have been proved, but nobody has bothered to prove the consequent. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 6.7) | |
| A reaction: [He cites Heyting] This is a bit baffling. In what sense can 'it' (i.e. the conditional implication) have been 'proved' if the consequent doesn't immediately follow? Proving both propositions seems to make the conditional redundant. |
| 10253 | Either logic determines objects, or objects determine logic, or they are separate [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Ontology does not depend on language and logic if either one has the objects determining the logic, or the objects are independent of the logic. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 6.4) | |
| A reaction: I favour the first option. I think we should seek an account of how logic grows from our understanding of the physical world. If this cannot be established, I shall invent a new Mad Logic, and use it for all my future reasoning, with (I trust) impunity. |
| 10251 | The law of excluded middle might be seen as a principle of omniscience [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The law of excluded middle might be seen as a principle of omniscience. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 6.3) | |
| A reaction: [E.Bishop 1967 is cited] Put that way, you can see why a lot of people (such as intuitionists in mathematics) might begin to doubt it. |
| 10212 | Classical connectives differ from their ordinary language counterparts; '∧' is timeless, unlike 'and' [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: To some extent, every truth-functional connective differs from its counterpart in ordinary language. Classical conjunction, for example, is timeless, whereas the word 'and' often is not. 'Socrates runs and Socrates stops' cannot be reversed. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 3) | |
| A reaction: Shapiro suggests two interpretations: either the classical connectives are revealing the deeper structure of ordinary language, or else they are a simplification of it. |
| 10209 | A function is just an arbitrary correspondence between collections [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The modern extensional notion of function is just an arbitrary correspondence between collections. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 1) | |
| A reaction: Shapiro links this with the idea that a set is just an arbitrary collection. These minimalist concepts seem like a reaction to a general failure to come up with a more useful and common sense definition. |
| 10268 | Maybe plural quantifiers should be understood in terms of classes or sets [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Maybe plural quantifiers should themselves be understood in terms of classes (or sets). | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 7.4) | |
| A reaction: [Shapiro credits Resnik for this criticism] |
| 10235 | A sentence is 'satisfiable' if it has a model [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Normally, to say that a sentence Φ is 'satisfiable' is to say that there exists a model of Φ. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 4.8) | |
| A reaction: Nothing is said about whether the model is impressive, or founded on good axioms. Tarski builds his account of truth from this initial notion of satisfaction. |
| 10239 | The central notion of model theory is the relation of 'satisfaction' [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The central notion of model theory is the relation of 'satisfaction', sometimes called 'truth in a model'. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 4.9) |
| 10240 | Model theory deals with relations, reference and extensions [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Model theory determines only the relations between truth conditions, the reference of singular terms, the extensions of predicates, and the extensions of the logical terminology. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 4.9) |
| 10238 | The set-theoretical hierarchy contains as many isomorphism types as possible [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Set theorists often point out that the set-theoretical hierarchy contains as many isomorphism types as possible; that is the point of the theory. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 4.8) | |
| A reaction: Hence there are a huge number of models for any theory, which are then reduced to the one we want at the level of isomorphism. |
| 10214 | Theory ontology is never complete, but is only determined 'up to isomorphism' [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: No object-language theory determines its ontology by itself. The best possible is that all models are isomorphic, in which case the ontology is determined 'up to isomorphism', but only if the domain is finite, or it is stronger than first-order. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 2.5) | |
| A reaction: This seems highly significant when ontological claims are being made, and is good support for Shapiro's claim that the structures matter, not the objects. There is a parallel in Tarksi's notion of truth-in-all-models. [The Skolem Paradox is the problem] |
| 10234 | Any theory with an infinite model has a model of every infinite cardinality [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The Löwenheim-Skolem theorems (which apply to first-order formal theories) show that any theory with an infinite model has a model of every infinite cardinality. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 4.8) | |
| A reaction: This aspect of the theorems is the Skolem Paradox. Shapiro argues that in first-order this infinity of models for arithmetic must be accepted, but he defends second-order model theory, where 'standard' models can be selected. |
| 10201 | Virtually all of mathematics can be modeled in set theory [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: It is well known that virtually every field of mathematics can be reduced to, or modelled in, set theory. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], Intro) | |
| A reaction: The word 'virtually' is tantalising. The fact that something can be 'modeled' in set theory doesn't mean it IS set theory. Most weather can be modeled in a computer. |
| 10213 | Real numbers are thought of as either Cauchy sequences or Dedekind cuts [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Real numbers are either Cauchy sequences of rational numbers (interpreted as pairs of integers), or else real numbers can be thought of as Dedekind cuts, certain sets of rational numbers. So π is a Dedekind cut, or an equivalence class of sequences. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 2.5) | |
| A reaction: This question is parallel to the question of whether natural numbers are Zermelo sets or Von Neumann sets. The famous problem is that there seems no way of deciding. Hence, for Shapiro, we are looking at models, not actual objects. |
| 18243 | Understanding the real-number structure is knowing usage of the axiomatic language of analysis [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: There is no more to understanding the real-number structure than knowing how to use the language of analysis. .. One learns the axioms of the implicit definition. ...These determine the realtionships between real numbers. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 4.9) | |
| A reaction: This, of course, is the structuralist view of such things, which isn't really interested in the intrinsic nature of anything, but only in its relations. The slogan that 'meaning is use' seems to be in the background. |
| 18245 | Cuts are made by the smallest upper or largest lower number, some of them not rational [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: A Dedekind Cut is a division of rationals into two set (A1,A2) where every member of A1 is less than every member of A2. If n is the largest A1 or the smallest A2, the cut is produced by n. Some cuts aren't produced by rationals. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 5.4) |
| 12920 | There is no multiplicity without true units [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: There is no multiplicity without true units. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.04.30) | |
| A reaction: Hence real numbers do not embody 'multiplicity'. So either they don't 'embody' anything, or they embody 'magnitudes'. Does this give two entirely different notions, of measure of multiplicity and measures of magnitude? |
| 10236 | There is no grounding for mathematics that is more secure than mathematics [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: We cannot ground mathematics in any domain or theory that is more secure than mathematics itself. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 4.8) | |
| A reaction: This pronouncement comes after a hundred years of hard work, notably by Gödel, so we'd better believe it. It might explain why Putnam rejects the idea that mathematics needs 'foundations'. Personally I'm prepare to found it in countable objects. |
| 10256 | For intuitionists, proof is inherently informal [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: For intuitionists, proof is inherently informal. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 6.7) | |
| A reaction: This thought is quite appealing, so I may have to take intuitionism more seriously. It connects with my view of coherence, which I take to be a notion far too complex for precise definition. However, we don't want 'proof' to just mean 'persuasive'. |
| 10202 | Natural numbers just need an initial object, successors, and an induction principle [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The natural-number structure is a pattern common to any system of objects that has a distinguished initial object and a successor relation that satisfies the induction principle | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], Intro) | |
| A reaction: If you started your number system with 5, and successors were only odd numbers, something would have gone wrong, so a bit more seems to be needed. How do we decided whether the initial object is 0, 1 or 2? |
| 10205 | Mathematics originally concerned the continuous (geometry) and the discrete (arithmetic) [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Originally, the focus of geometry was space - matter and extension - and the subject matter of arithmetic was quantity. Geometry concerned the continuous, whereas arithmetic concerned the discrete. Mathematics left these roots in the nineteenth century. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], Intro) | |
| A reaction: Mathematicians can do what they like, but I don't think philosophers of mathematics should lose sight of these two roots. It would be odd if the true nature of mathematics had nothing whatever to do with its origin. |
| 10222 | Mathematical foundations may not be sets; categories are a popular rival [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Foundationalists (e.g. Quine and Lewis) have shown that mathematics can be rendered in theories other than the iterative hierarchy of sets. A dedicated contingent hold that the category of categories is the proper foundation (e.g. Lawvere). | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 3.3) | |
| A reaction: I like the sound of that. The categories are presumably concepts that generate sets. Tricky territory, with Frege's disaster as a horrible warning to be careful. |
| 10218 | Baseball positions and chess pieces depend entirely on context [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: We cannot imagine a shortstop independent of a baseball infield, or a piece that plays the role of black's queen bishop independent of a chess game. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 3.1) | |
| A reaction: This is the basic thought that leads to the structuralist view of things. I must be careful because I like structuralism, but I have attacked the functionalist view in many areas, because it neglects the essences of the functioning entities. |
| 10224 | The even numbers have the natural-number structure, with 6 playing the role of 3 [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The even numbers and the natural numbers greater than 4 both exemplify the natural-number structure. In the former, 6 plays the 3 role, and in the latter 8 plays the 3 role. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 3.5) | |
| A reaction: This begins to sound a bit odd. If you count the even numbers, 6 is the third one. I could count pebbles using only evens, but then presumably '6' would just mean '3'; it wouldn't be the actual number 6 acting in a different role, like Laurence Olivier. |
| 10228 | Could infinite structures be apprehended by pattern recognition? [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: It is contentious, to say the least, to claim that infinite structures are apprehended by pattern recognition. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 4.1) | |
| A reaction: It only seems contentious for completed infinities. The idea that the pattern continues in same way seems (pace Wittgenstein) fairly self-evident, just like an arithmetical series. |
| 10230 | The 4-pattern is the structure common to all collections of four objects [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The 4-pattern is the structure common to all collections of four objects. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 4.2) | |
| A reaction: This seems open to Frege's objection, that you can have four disparate abstract concepts, or four spatially scattered items of unknown pattern. It certainly isn't a visual pattern, but then if the only detectable pattern is the fourness, it is circular. |
| 10249 | The main mathematical structures are algebraic, ordered, and topological [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: According to Bourbaki, there are three main types of structure: algebraic structures, such as group, ring, field; order structures, such as partial order, linear order, well-order; topological structures, involving limit, neighbour, continuity, and space. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 5.5) | |
| A reaction: Bourbaki is mentioned as the main champion of structuralism within mathematics. |
| 10273 | Some structures are exemplified by both abstract and concrete [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Some structures are exemplified by both systems of abstracta and systems of concreta. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 8.2) | |
| A reaction: It at least seems plausible that one might try to build a physical structure that modelled arithmetic (an abacus might be an instance), so the parallel is feasible. Then to say that the abstract arose from modelling the physical seems equally plausible. |
| 10276 | Mathematical structures are defined by axioms, or in set theory [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Mathematical structures are characterised axiomatically (as implicit definitions), or they are defined in set theory. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 8.3) | |
| A reaction: Presumably earlier mathematicians had neither axiomatised their theories, nor expressed them in set theory, but they still had a good working knowledge of the relationships. |
| 10270 | The main versions of structuralism are all definitionally equivalent [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Ante rem structuralism, eliminative structuralism formulated over a sufficiently large domain of abstract objects, and modal eliminative structuralism are all definitionally equivalent. Neither is to be ontologically preferred, but the first is clearer. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 7.5) | |
| A reaction: Since Shapiro's ontology is platonist, I would have thought there were pretty obvious grounds for making a choice between that and eliminativm, even if the grounds are intuitive rather than formal. |
| 10221 | Is there is no more to structures than the systems that exemplify them? [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The 'in re' view of structures is that there is no more to structures than the systems that exemplify them. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 3.3) | |
| A reaction: I say there is more than just the systems, because we can abstract from them to a common structure, but that doesn't commit us to the existence of such a common structure. |
| 10248 | Number statements are generalizations about number sequences, and are bound variables [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: According to 'in re' structuralism, a statement that appears to be about numbers is a disguised generalization about all natural-number sequences; the numbers are bound variables, not singular terms. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 5.3.4) | |
| A reaction: Any theory of anything which comes out with the thought that 'really it is a variable, not a ...' has my immediate attention and sympathy. |
| 10220 | Because one structure exemplifies several systems, a structure is a one-over-many [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Because the same structure can be exemplified by more than one system, a structure is a one-over-many. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 3.3) | |
| A reaction: The phrase 'one-over-many' is a classic Greek hallmark of a universal. Cf. Idea 10217, where Shapiro talks of arriving at structures by abstraction, through focusing and ignoring. This sounds more like a creation than a platonic universal. |
| 10223 | There is no 'structure of all structures', just as there is no set of all sets [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: There is no 'structure of all structures', just as there is no set of all sets. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 3.4) | |
| A reaction: If one cannot abstract from all the structures to a higher level, why should Shapiro have abstracted from the systems/models to get the over-arching structures? |
| 8703 | Shapiro's structuralism says model theory (comparing structures) is the essence of mathematics [Shapiro, by Friend] |
| Full Idea: Shapiro's structuralism champions model theory as the branch of mathematics that best describes mathematics. The essence of mathematical activity is seen as an exercise in comparing mathematical structures to each other. | |
| From: report of Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 4.4) by Michèle Friend - Introducing the Philosophy of Mathematics | |
| A reaction: Note it 'best describes' it, rather than being foundational. Assessing whether propositional logic is complete is given as an example of model theory. That makes model theory a very high-level activity. Does it capture simple arithmetic? |
| 10274 | Does someone using small numbers really need to know the infinite structure of arithmetic? [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: According to structuralism, someone who uses small natural numbers in everyday life presupposes an infinite structure. It seems absurd that a child who learns to count his toes applies an infinite structure to reality, and thus presupposes the structure. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 8.2) | |
| A reaction: Shapiro says we can meet this objection by thinking of smaller structures embedded in larger ones, with the child knowing the smaller ones. |
| 10200 | We distinguish realism 'in ontology' (for objects), and 'in truth-value' (for being either true or false) [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: We must distinguish between 'realism in ontology' - that mathematical objects exist - and 'realism in truth-value', which is suggested by the model-theoretic framework - that each well-formed meaningful sentence is non-vacuously either true or false. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], Intro) | |
| A reaction: My inclination is fairly strongly towards realism of the second kind, but not of the first. A view about the notion of a 'truth-maker' might therefore be required. What do the truths refer to? Answer: not objects, but abstractions from objects. |
| 10210 | If mathematical objects are accepted, then a number of standard principles will follow [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: One who believes in the independent existence of mathematical objects is likely to accept the law of excluded middle, impredicative definitions, the axiom of choice, extensionality, and arbitrary sets and functions. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 1) | |
| A reaction: The underlying thought is that since the objects pre-exist, all of the above simply describe the relations between them, rather than having to actually bring the objects into existence. Personally I would seek a middle ground. |
| 10215 | Platonists claim we can state the essence of a number without reference to the others [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The Platonist view may be that one can state the essence of each number, without referring to the other numbers. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 3.1) | |
| A reaction: Frege certainly talks this way (in his 'borehole' analogy). Fine, we are asked to spell out the essence of some number, without making reference either to any 'units' composing it, or to any other number adjacent to it or composing it. Reals? |
| 10233 | Platonism must accept that the Peano Axioms could all be false [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: A traditional Platonist has to face the possibility that all of the Peano Axioms are false. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 4.7) | |
| A reaction: This would be because the objects exist independently, and so the Axioms are a mere human attempt at pinning them down. For the Formalist the axioms create the numbers, and so couldn't be false. This makes me, alas, warm to platonism! |
| 10244 | Intuition is an outright hindrance to five-dimensional geometry [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Even if spatial intuition provides a little help in the heuristics of four-dimensional geometry, intuition is an outright hindrance for five-dimensional geometry and beyond. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 5.2) | |
| A reaction: One might respond by saying 'so much the worse for five-dimensional geometry'. One could hardly abolish the subject, though, so the point must be taken. |
| 10280 | A stone is a position in some pattern, and can be viewed as an object, or as a location [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: For each stone, there is at least one pattern such that the stone is a position in that pattern. The stone can be treated in terms of places-are-objects, or places-are-offices, to be filled with objects drawn from another ontology. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 8.4) | |
| A reaction: I believe this is the story J.S. Mill had in mind. His view was that the structures move off into abstraction, but it is only at the empirical and physical level that we can possibly learn the structures. |
| 10254 | Can the ideal constructor also destroy objects? [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Can we assume that the ideal constructor cannot destroy objects? Presumably the ideal constructor does not have an eraser, and the collection of objects is non-reducing over time. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 6.5) | |
| A reaction: A very nice question, which platonists should enjoy. |
| 10255 | Presumably nothing can block a possible dynamic operation? [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Presumably within a dynamic system, once the constructor has an operation available, then no activity can preclude the performance of the operation? | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 6.5) | |
| A reaction: There seems to be an interesting assumption in static accounts of mathematics, that all the possible outputs of (say) a function actually exist with a theory. In an actual dynamic account, the constructor may be smitten with lethargy. |
| 10279 | Can we discover whether a deck is fifty-two cards, or a person is time-slices or molecules? [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Can we 'discover' whether a deck is really identical with its fifty-two cards, or whether a person is identical with her corresponding time-slices, molecules, or space-time points? This is like Benacerraf's problem about numbers. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997]) | |
| A reaction: Shapiro is defending the structuralist view, that each of these is a model of an agreed reality, so we cannot choose a right model if they all satisfy the necessary criteria. |
| 12319 | What is not truly one being is not truly a being either [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: What is not truly one being is not truly a being either. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.04.30), quoted by Alain Badiou - Briefings on Existence 1 | |
| A reaction: Badiou quotes this as identifying Being with the One. I say Leibniz had no concept of 'gunk', and thought everything must have a 'this' identity in order to exist, which is just the sort of thing a logician would come up with. |
| 12922 | A thing 'expresses' another if they have a constant and fixed relationship [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: One thing 'expresses' another (in my terminology) when there exists a constant and fixed relationship between what can be said of one and of the other. This is the way that a perspectival projection expresses its ground-plan. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.10.09) | |
| A reaction: Arnauld was puzzled by what Leibniz might mean by 'express', and it occurs to me that Leibniz was fishing for the modern concept of 'supervenience'. It also sounds a bit like the idea of 'covariance' between mind and world. Maybe he means 'function'. |
| 10227 | The abstract/concrete boundary now seems blurred, and would need a defence [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The epistemic proposals of ontological realists in mathematics (such as Maddy and Resnik) has resulted in the blurring of the abstract/concrete boundary. ...Perhaps the burden is now on defenders of the boundary. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 4.1) | |
| A reaction: As Shapiro says, 'a vague boundary is still a boundary', so we need not be mesmerised by borderline cases. I would defend the boundary, with the concrete just being physical. A chair is physical, but our concept of a chair may already be abstract. |
| 10226 | Mathematicians regard arithmetic as concrete, and group theory as abstract [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Mathematicians use the 'abstract/concrete' label differently, with arithmetic being 'concrete' because it is a single structure (up to isomorphism), while group theory is considered more 'abstract'. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 4.1 n1) | |
| A reaction: I would say that it is the normal distinction, but they have moved the significant boundary up several levels in the hierarchy of abstraction. |
| 10262 | Fictionalism eschews the abstract, but it still needs the possible (without model theory) [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Fictionalism takes an epistemology of the concrete to be more promising than concrete-and-abstract, but fictionalism requires an epistemology of the actual and possible, secured without the benefits of model theory. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 7.2) | |
| A reaction: The idea that possibilities (logical, natural and metaphysical) should be understood as features of the concrete world has always struck me as appealing, so I have (unlike Shapiro) no intuitive problems with this proposal. |
| 10277 | Structuralism blurs the distinction between mathematical and ordinary objects [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: One result of the structuralist perspective is a healthy blurring of the distinction between mathematical and ordinary objects. ..'According to the structuralist, physical configurations often instantiate mathematical patterns'. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 8.4) | |
| A reaction: [The quotation is from Penelope Maddy 1988 p.28] This is probably the main reason why I found structuralism interesting, and began to investigate it. |
| 13079 | A substance contains the laws of its operations, and its actions come from its own depth [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: Each indivisible substance contains in its nature the law by which the series of its operations continues, and all that has happened and will happen to it. All its actions come from its own depths, except for dependence on God. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1688.01.4/14) | |
| A reaction: I take the combination of 'laws' and 'forces', which Leibniz attributes to Aristotelian essences, to be his distinctive contribution towards giving us an Aristotelian metaphysic which is suitable for modern science. |
| 10272 | The notion of 'object' is at least partially structural and mathematical [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The very notion of 'object' is at least partially structural and mathematical. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 8.1) | |
| A reaction: [In the context, Shapiro clearly has physical objects in mind] This view seems to fit with Russell's 'relational' view of the physical world, though Russell rejected structuralism in mathematics. I take abstraction to be part of perception. |
| 12745 | Philosophy needs the precision of the unity given by substances [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: Philosophy cannot be better reduced to something precise, than by recognising only substances or complete beings endowed with a true unity, with different states that succeed one another; all else is phenomena, abstractions or relations. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.04.30), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 7 | |
| A reaction: This idea bothers me. Has the whole of modern philosophy been distorted by this yearning for 'precision'? It has put mathematicians and logicians in the driving seat. Do we only attribute unity because it suits our thinking? |
| 12921 | Accidental unity has degrees, from a mob to a society to a machine or organism [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: There are degrees of accidental unity, and an ordered society has more unity than a chaotic mob, and an organic body or a machine has more unity than a society. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.04.30) | |
| A reaction: This immediately invites questions about the extremes. Why does the very highest degree of 'accidental unity' not achieve 'true unity'? And why cannot a very ununified aggregate have a bit of unity (as in unrestricted mereological composition)? |
| 12746 | We find unity in reason, and unity in perception, but these are not true unity [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: A pair of diamonds is merely an entity of reason, and even if one of them is brought close to another, it is an entity of imagination or perception, that is to say a phenomenon; contiguity, common movement and the same end don't make substantial unity. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.04.30), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 7 | |
| A reaction: This invites the question of what you have to do to two objects to give them substantial unity. The distinction between unity 'of reason' and unity 'of perception' is good. |
| 12916 | A body is a unified aggregate, unless it has an indivisible substance [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: One will never find a body of which it may be said that it is truly one substance, ...because entities made up by aggregation have only as much reality as exists in the constituent parts. Hence the substance of a body must be indivisible. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.11) | |
| A reaction: Leibniz rejected atomism, and he evidently believed that pure materialists must deny the real existence of physical objects. Common sense suggests that causal bonds bestow a high degree of unity on bodies (if degrees are allowed). |
| 12919 | Unity needs an indestructible substance, to contain everything which will happen to it [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: Substantial unity requires a complete, indivisible and naturally indestructible entity, since its concept embraces everything that is to happen to it, which cannot be found in shape or motion. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.11.28/12.8) | |
| A reaction: Hence if a tile is due to be broken in half (Arnauld's example), it cannot have had unity in the first place. To what do we refer when we say 'the tile was broken'? |
| 12923 | Every bodily substance must have a soul, or something analogous to a soul [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: Every bodily substance must have a soul, or at least an entelechy which is analogous to the soul. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.10.09) | |
| A reaction: He routinely commits to a 'soul', and then pulls back and says it may only be an 'analogy'. He had deep doubts about his whole scheme, which emerged in the late correspondence with Des Bosses. This not monads, says Garber. |
| 12704 | Aggregates don’t reduce to points, or atoms, or illusion, so must reduce to substance [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: In aggregates one must necessarily arrive either at mathematical points from which some make up extension, or at atoms (which I dismiss), or else no reality can be found in bodies, or finally one must recognises substances that possess a true unity. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.04.30), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 2 | |
| A reaction: Garber calls this Leibniz's Aggregate Argument. Leibniz is, of course, talking of physical aggregates which have unity. He consistently points out that a pile of logs has no unity at all. But is substance just that-which-provides-unity? |
| 10275 | A blurry border is still a border [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: A blurry border is still a border. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 8.3) | |
| A reaction: This remark deserves to be quoted in almost every area of philosophy, against those who attack a concept by focusing on its vague edges. Philosophers should focus on central cases, not borderline cases (though the latter may be of interest). |
| 13077 | Basic predicates give the complete concept, which then predicts all of the actions [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: Apart from those that depend on others, one must only consider together all the basic predicates in order to form the complete concept of Adam adequate to deduce from it everything that is ever to happen to him, as much as is necessary to account for it. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.06) | |
| A reaction: This (implausibly) goes beyond mere prediction of properties. Eve's essence seems to be relevant to Adam's life. Note that the complete concept is not every predicate, but only those 'necessary' to predict the events. Cf Idea 13082. |
| 12908 | Essences exist in the divine understanding [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: Essences exist in the divine understanding before one considers will. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14 X) | |
| A reaction: This is a sort of religious neo-platonism. The great dream seems to be that of mind-reading God, and the result is either Pythagoras (it's numbers!), or Plato (it's pure ideas!), or this (it's essences!). See D.H.Lawrence's poem on geranium and mignottes. |
| 12706 | Bodies need a soul (or something like it) to avoid being mere phenomena [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: Every substance is indivisible and consequently every corporeal substance must have a soul or at least an entelechy which is analogous to the soul, since otherwise bodies would be no more than phenomena. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], G II 121), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 2 | |
| A reaction: There is a large gap between having 'a soul' and having something 'analogous to a soul'. I take the analogy to be merely as originators of action. Leibniz wants to add appetite and sensation to the Aristotelian forms (but knows this is dubious!). |
| 12906 | Truths about species are eternal or necessary, but individual truths concern what exists [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: The concept of a species contains only eternal or necessary truths, whereas the concept of an individual contains, regarded as possible, what in fact exists or what is related to the existence of things and to time. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.06) | |
| A reaction: This seems to be what is behind the preference some have for kind-essences rather than individual essences. But the individual must be explained, as well as the kind. Not all tigers are identical. The two are, of course, compatible. |
| 10258 | Logical modalities may be acceptable, because they are reducible to satisfaction in models [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: For many philosophers the logical notions of possibility and necessity are exceptions to a general scepticism, perhaps because they have been reduced to model theory, via set theory. Thus Φ is logically possible if there is a model that satisfies it. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 7.1) | |
| A reaction: Initially this looks a bit feeble, like an empiricist only believing what they actually see right now, but the modern analytical philosophy project seems to be the extension of logical accounts further and further into what we intuit about modality. |
| 10266 | Why does the 'myth' of possible worlds produce correct modal logic? [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The fact that the 'myth' of possible worlds happens to produce the correct modal logic is itself a phenomenon in need of explanation. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 7.4) | |
| A reaction: The claim that it produces 'the' correct modal logic seems to beg a lot of questions, given the profusion of modal systems. This is a problem with any sort of metaphysics which invokes fictionalism - what were those particular fictions responding to? |
| 12904 | If varieties of myself can be conceived of as distinct from me, then they are not me [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: I can as little conceive of different varieties of myself as of a circle whose diameters are not all of equal length. These variations would all be distinct one from another, and thus one of these varieties of myself would necessarily not be me. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.05.13) | |
| A reaction: This seems to be, at the very least, a rejection of any idea that I could have a 'counterpart'. It is unclear, though, where he would place a version of himself who learned a new language, or who might have had, but didn't have, a haircut. |
| 11981 | If someone's life went differently, then that would be another individual [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: If the life of some person, or something went differently than it does, nothing would stop us from saying that it would be another person, or another possible universe which God had chosen. So truly it would be another individual. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.14) | |
| A reaction: Plantinga quotes this as an example of 'worldbound individuals'. This sort of remark leads to people saying that Leibniz believes all properties are essential, since they assume that his notion of essence is bound up with identity. But is it? |
| 12905 | I cannot think my non-existence, nor exist without being myself [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: I am assured that as long as I think, I am myself. For I cannot think that I do not exist, nor exist so that I be not myself. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.05.13) | |
| A reaction: Elsewhere he qualifies the Cogito, but here he seems to straighforwardly endorse it. |
| 19334 | I can't just know myself to be a substance; I must distinguish myself from others, which is hard [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: It is not enough for understanding the nature of myself, that I feel myself to be a thinking substance, one would have to form a distinct idea of what distinguishes me from all other possible minds; but of that I have only a confused experience. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14) | |
| A reaction: Not a criticism I have encountered before. Does he mean that I might be two minds, or might be a multitude of minds? It seems to be Hume's problem, that you are aware of experiences, but not of the substance that unites them. |
| 5033 | Nothing should be taken as certain without foundations [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: Nothing should be taken as certain without foundations. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.04.30) | |
| A reaction: This might leave open the option, if you were a modern 'Fallibilist', that something might lack foundations, and so not be certain, and yet still qualify as 'knowledge'. That is my view. Knowledge resides somewhere between opinion and certainty. |
| 12913 | Nature is explained by mathematics and mechanism, but the laws rest on metaphysics [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: One must always explain nature along mathematical and mechanical lines, provided one knows that the very principles or laws of mechanics or of force do not depend upon mathematical extension alone but upon certain metaphysical reasons. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14 X) | |
| A reaction: I like this, and may even use it as the epigraph of my masterwork. Recently Stephen Hawking (physicist) has been denigrating philosophy, but I am with Leibniz on this one. |
| 13089 | To fully conceive the subject is to explain the resulting predicates and events [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: Even in the most contingent truths, there is always something to be conceived in the subject which serves to explain why this predicate or event pertains to it, or why this has happened rather than not. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.06) | |
| A reaction: The last bit, about containing what has happened, seems absurd, but the rest of it makes sense. It is just the Aristotelian essentialist view, that a full understanding of the inner subject will both explain and predict the surface properties. |
| 5034 | Mind is a thinking substance which can know God and eternal truths [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: Minds are substances which think, and are capable of knowing God and of discovering eternal truths. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1687.10.09) | |
| A reaction: 'God' is there because the ability to grasp the ontological argument is seen as basic. Note a firm commitment to substance-dualism, and a rationalist commitment to the spotting of necessary truths as basic. He is not totally wrong. |
| 5032 | It seems probable that animals have souls, but not consciousness [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: It appears probable that the brutes have souls, though they are without consciousness. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.12.08) | |
| A reaction: This will be a response to Descartes, who allowed animals sensations, but not minds or souls. Personally I cannot make head or tail of Leibniz's claim. What makes it "apparent" to him? |
| 10203 | We apprehend small, finite mathematical structures by abstraction from patterns [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The epistemological account of mathematical structures depends on the size and complexity of the structure, but small, finite structures are apprehended through abstraction via simple pattern recognition. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], Intro) | |
| A reaction: Yes! This I take to be the reason why John Stuart Mill was not a fool in his discussion of the pebbles. Successive abstractions (and fictions) will then get you to more complex structures. |
| 5031 | Everything which happens is not necessary, but is certain after God chooses this universe [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: It is not the case that everything which happens is necessary; rather, everything which happens is certain after God made choice of this possible universe, whose notion contains this series of things. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.05) | |
| A reaction: I think this distinction is best captured as 'metaphysical necessity' (Leibniz's 'necessity'), and 'natural necessity' (his 'certainty'). 'Certainty' seems a bad word, as it is either certain de dicto or de re. Is God certain, or is the thing certain? |
| 12911 | Concepts are what unite a proposition [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: There must always be some basis for the connexion between the terms of a proposition, and it is to be found in their concepts. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14 X) | |
| A reaction: We face the problem that bothered Russell, of the unity of the proposition. We are also led to the question of HOW our concepts connect the parts of a proposition. Do concepts have valencies? Are they incomplete, as Frege suggests? |
| 10229 | Simple types can be apprehended through their tokens, via abstraction [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Some realists argue that simple types can be apprehended through their tokens, via abstraction. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 4.2) | |
| A reaction: One might rephrase that to say that types are created by abstraction from tokens (and then preserved in language). |
| 10217 | We can apprehend structures by focusing on or ignoring features of patterns [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: One way to apprehend a particular structure is through a process of pattern recognition, or abstraction. One observes systems in a structure, and focuses attention on the relations among the objects - ignoring features irrelevant to their relations. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 3.1) | |
| A reaction: A lovely statement of the classic Aristotelian abstractionist approach of focusing-and-ignoring. But this is made in 1997, long after Frege and Geach ridiculed it. It just won't go away - not if you want a full and unified account of what is going on. |
| 9554 | We can focus on relations between objects (like baseballers), ignoring their other features [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: One can observe a system and focus attention on the relations among the objects - ignoring those features of the objects not relevant to the system. For example, we can understand a baseball defense system by going to several games. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], p.74), quoted by Charles Chihara - A Structural Account of Mathematics | |
| A reaction: This is Shapiro perpetrating precisely the wicked abstractionism which Frege and Geach claim is ridiculous. Frege objects that abstract concepts then become private, but baseball defences are discussed in national newspapers. |
| 10231 | Abstract objects might come by abstraction over an equivalence class of base entities [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Perhaps we can introduce abstract objects by abstraction over an equivalence relation on a base class of entities, just as Frege suggested that 'direction' be obtained from parallel lines. ..Properties must be equinumerous, but need not be individuated. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 4.5) | |
| A reaction: [He cites Hale and Wright as the originators of this} It is not entirely clear why this is 'abstraction', rather than just drawing attention to possible groupings of entities. |
| 12925 | Beauty increases with familiarity [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: The more one is familiar with things, the more beautiful one finds them. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1688.01.4/14) | |
| A reaction: This is always the reply given to those who say that science kills our sense of beauty. The first step in aesthetic life is certainly to really really pay attention to things. |
| 12927 | Happiness is advancement towards perfection [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: Happiness, or lasting contentment, consists of continual advancement towards a greater perfection. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1690.03.23) | |
| A reaction: To the modern mind this smacks of the sort of hubris to which only the religious mind can aspire, but it's still rather nice. The idea of grubby little mammals approaching perfection sounds wrong, but which other animal has even thought of perfection? |
| 1748 | Archelaus was the first person to say that the universe is boundless [Archelaus, by Diog. Laertius] |
| Full Idea: Archelaus was the first person to say that the universe is boundless. | |
| From: report of Archelaus (fragments/reports [c.450 BCE]) by Diogenes Laertius - Lives of Eminent Philosophers 02.Ar.3 |
| 15955 | I think the corpuscular theory, rather than forms or qualities, best explains particular phenomena [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: I still subscribe fully to the corpuscular theory in the explanation of particular phenomena; in this sphere it is of no value to speak of forms or qualities. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 14.07.1686) | |
| A reaction: I am puzzled by Garber's summary in Idea 12728, and a bit unclear on Leibniz's views on atoms. More needed. |
| 12907 | Each possible world contains its own laws, reflected in the possible individuals of that world [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: As there exist an infinite number of possible worlds, there exists also an infinite number of laws, some peculiar to one world, some to another, and each individual of any one world contains in the concept of him the laws of his world. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.06) | |
| A reaction: Since Leibniz's metaphysics is thoroughly God-driven, he will obviously allow God to create any laws He wishes, and hence scientific essentialism seems to be rejected, even though Leibniz is keen on essences. Unless the stuff is different... |
| 12924 | Motion alone is relative, but force is real, and establishes its subject [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: Motion in itself separated from force is merely relative, and one cannot establish its subject. But force is something real and absolute. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1688.01.4/14) | |
| A reaction: The striking phrase here is that force enables us to 'establish its subject'. That is, force is at the heart of reality, and hence, through causal relations, individuates objects. That's how I read it. |
| 5989 | Archelaus said life began in a primeval slime [Archelaus, by Schofield] |
| Full Idea: Archelaus wrote that life on Earth began in a primeval slime. | |
| From: report of Archelaus (fragments/reports [c.450 BCE]) by Malcolm Schofield - Archelaus | |
| A reaction: This sounds like a fairly clearcut assertion of the production of life by evolution. Darwin's contribution was to propose the mechanism for achieving it. We should honour the name of Archelaus for this idea. |
| 12909 | Everything, even miracles, belongs to order [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: Everything, even miracles, belongs to order. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14 X) | |
| A reaction: This is very reminiscent of Plato, for whom there was no more deeply held belief than that the cosmos is essentially orderly. Coincidences are a nice problem, if they are events with no cause. |
| 5030 | Miracles are extraordinary operations by God, but are nevertheless part of his design [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: Miracles, or the extraordinary operations of God, none the less belong within the general order; they are in conformity with the principal designs of God, and consequently are included in the notion of this universe, which is the result of those designs. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.05) | |
| A reaction: Some philosophers just make up things to suit themselves. What possible grounds can he have for claiming this? At best this is tautological, saying that, by definition, if anything at all happens, it must be part of God's design. Move on to Hume… |
| 12912 | Immortality without memory is useless [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: Immortality without memory would be useless. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.07.4/14 X) | |
| A reaction: I would say that having a mind of any sort needs memory. The question for immortality is whether it extends back to human life. See 'Wuthering Heights' (c. p90) for someone who remembers Earth as so superior to paradise that they long to return there. |
| 12917 | The soul is indestructible and always self-aware [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: Not only is the soul indestructible, but it always knows itself and remains self-conscious. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.11) | |
| A reaction: Personally I am not even self-aware during much of my sleeping hours, and I would say that I cease to be self-aware if I am totally absorbed in something on which I concentrate. |
| 12918 | Animals have souls, but lack consciousness [Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: It appears probable that animals have souls although they lack consciousness. | |
| From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Antoine Arnauld [1686], 1686.11) | |
| A reaction: Personally I would say that they lack souls but have consciousness, but then I am in no better position to know the answer than Leibniz was. Arnauld asks what would happen to the souls of 100,000 silkworms if they caught fire! |