Universals. If no: Then it seems that they could not really be similar. If yes: Then properties like redness are THINGS.
|
|
- Gwendoline Park
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Universals 1. Introduction: Things cannot be in two places at once. If my cat, Precious, is in my living room, she can t at exactly the same time also be in YOUR living room! But, properties aren t like that. If I have something with the property circular in my living room, you CAN also have something in yours that is ALSO circular. I can take a pizza and slice it up and put PART of it in the kitchen, PART of it in the bathroom, and so on, but the entire pizza can never be WHOLLY located in many places at once. But, properties CAN be wholly and completely located in many places at once. This is the problem of the one and the many. It seems that there is just ONE property of circularity, but that this property is wholly instantiated in MANY different objects. Circularity is everywhere! As are properties like redness, horseness, and so on, as well as relations such as taller than, next to, etc. But, now, consider these two items: Are they similar in some way? It sure seems so. We can easily recognize that they are both red. Now ask: Is there something (i.e., some THING) that they have in common? If no: Then it seems that they could not really be similar. If yes: Then properties like redness are THINGS. 1
2 Intuitively, then, properties are THINGS. In philosophy, we call them universals. For instance, the universal redness is just that thing which the tomato and the rose above share in common. Recall that Plato believed that universals existed in a sort of heavenly realm called the realm of the Forms. All actual circles are just imperfect instantiations of the Form, Circularity. But, somewhere out there, in a supernatural realm, there exists the PERFECT CIRCLE. The FORM of circularity. While circularity needs objects to be instantiated in the actual world (for instance, one never finds circularity all by itself, but only circular THINGS like circular tires, plates, coins, and so on), in the realm of the Forms, circularity exists immaterially, in some abstract way. So, really, our entire world is just contains mere shadows of the true realm of being. So, Plato accepted the existence of abstract entities. This might seem weird, but don t you too? For instance, what are numbers? Ask: Is there a number between 10 and 12? Yes, you say. But, a-ha! You have just affirmed that such a thing DOES exist! And not merely the inky scratch that look like 11 on a piece of paper. No, the numbers are not the symbols themselves (e.g., 11, eleven, xi, and so on). Rather, they are the THINGS that those symbols REPRESENT. Numbers, therefore, seem to exist (as abstract things). Similarly, propositions seem to exist in some abstract way. Compare, for instance: (1) The cat is in the tree. (2) El gato está en el árbol. (3) Le chat est dans l'arbre. The visual symbols marked out in (1), (2), and (3) are clearly different. Furthermore, the auditory symbols that we use to refer to them are also different (i.e., we d VOCALIZE them differently when reading them). Nevertheless, (1), (2), and (3) all represent the same thing. Namely, they represent the same proposition. But, where is this proposition? It too seems to be an abstract thing. So too for things like humanity, horseness, redness justice, goodness, truth, and so on. Duns Scotus & Realism: Considerations like these led many Medieval philosophers to accept the existence of universals as existing, abstract things. This view is called Realism. Among other things, there was a theological motivation for this view. For instance, recall that Scotus has said that we can predicate things of both God and humans in a univocal way. This is just fancy talk for saying that there are some properties that are simultaneously both in God AND man. 2
3 2. Aquinas and the Problem of Individuation: But, a problem arises. A brief look at Aquinas s view will illustrate this. Aquinas asks, What is the essence of a human being? By this, he means to ask, what is the DEFINITION of humanity? What is it that makes something be THIS kind of thing rather than THAT kind of thing? Not ONLY matter: The nature, or definition, of a human being is not ONLY matter. First, because matter with no form is nothing at all. Second, that matter could have taken on an entirely different form (e.g., horse). Not ONLY form: Similarly, the nature of a human being is not ONLY its form. For, forms cannot exist on their own. They need some matter to form! Answer: The essence of human beings is to be a composite of matter and form. In short, we can define human being as: Human = The form of humanity + matter The Problem of Individuation: Here is where the problem arises. We have a definition of what makes something be this KIND (or species) of thing, but we haven t explained what makes something be this PARTICULAR (individual) thing. For instance, what Socrates IS is the composite of humanity + matter. But, what Plato IS is ALSO the composite of humanity + matter. They both seem to have one and the same essence. So, how is it that they are two different individuals? For, it seems that, if: Socrates = humanity + matter Plato = humanity + matter Socrates = Plato, and, then it follows that (which is clearly false) Answer: Thomas tells us that the essence, or definition, of human (as form of humanity + matter) doesn t refer to any PARTICULAR matter, just SOME MATTER OR OTHER. Meanwhile, the essence, or definition, of some PARTICULAR human, e.g., Socrates, (as form of human + matter) DOES refer to some particular matter namely, the matter that is in Socrates and no one else. He calls the matter in Socrates designated matter. THIS is what individuates different members of the same species. So, while you and I both have the same essence namely, what it IS to be you is to be human, and what it IS to be me is also to be human we are two different individuals because the matter of your body is not the same matter as the matter of my body. Aquinas writes, 3
4 Such [designated] matter is not placed in the definition of man as man, but it would be placed in the definition of Socrates, if Socrates had a definition. Rather, it is non-designated matter which is placed in the definition of man; for this bone and this flesh are not placed in the definition of man, but bone and flesh absolutely. These latter are man s non-designated matter. It is clear, therefore, that the essence of man and the essence of Socrates do not differ, except as the non-designated from the designated. (Being and Essence, 23-24) Hence this flesh and these bones, along with the accidental features that demarcate this matter, are not included in humanity. Yet they are included in any individual human. Thus an individual human contains something that humanity does not contain. (Summa Theologiae, I.3.3) 3. Duns Scotus: Scotus rejects this solution. Consider these questions: (a) Aquinas has said that the DEFINITION of me is the form of humanity + THIS particular material (i.e., the matter that composes my actual body). But, imagine that, centuries after my death, another human being comes to exist (call her Chadweena), and Chadweena s body just happens to be composed of exactly the same material that mine is presently composed of. According to Aquinas s proposal, she and I are numerically one and the same human being (because we have the same essence; or, form of humanity + this particular, designated matter). But, that can t be right. (b) I pitched the problem of individuation in terms of a challenge to explain why two humans are not identical; e.g., why Plato Socrates. Aquinas tells us that the reason why Plato is not the same human being as Socrates is that they are composed of different matter. But, does that really solve the problem of individuation? For NOW we need an explanation for why Plato s MATTER is not identical to Socrates MATTER; i.e., why Plato-Matter Socrates-Matter. In short, he s just pushed the problem back one level. So far, we ve seen that Realists accept the existence of a common nature that makes something be a particular KIND of thing. For instance, your humanity is what makes you be a human being, and not, say, a horse. Scotus s solution to the problem of individuation is just like this, only on the level of the individual instead of the species: He says that, what makes you be YOU, and not, say, Socrates is that, in addition to have a specific (i.e., species) nature (humanity), you must also have an INDIVIDUAL nature. For, instance, in addition to Socrates having humanity, he must also have Socrateity. The former is what makes him human, while the latter is what makes him THIS PARTICULAR HUMAN. 4
5 This solves problem (a) above: Even though we both have the form of humanity and share the same matter, Chad Chadweena, because I have something that she doesn t namely Chaddity. In turn, she has something that I don t: Chadweenaeity. These individuating natures have come to be known as haecceities. Literally, haecceity translates as thisness. Formal Distinction: Technically, Scotus is not arguing that my humanity and my Chaddity are TWO distinct entities that exist in the world. Rather, my Chaddity JUST IS my humanity, restricted or contracted into my unique Chad-human form. This is why Scotus says that they are only formally distinct but not REALLY distinct entities. It s like you have your humanity, but it s sort of squished into a YOU-shape, while I have my humanity, squished into a ME-shape. The thing that I have is really the exact same thing that you have, but they have slightly different forms. Not Platonism: Note that this is not full-blown Platonism. Scotus is not positing the existence of a realm of Ideal Forms out there somewhere. Very few Medievalists accepted the existence of such a realm. The closest sort of thing to that realm that they accepted was just the mind of God itself (e.g., perhaps all of the Ideal Forms are in God s thoughts). For Scotus and Aquinas, the universals, or forms, never exist without being IN some particular object. 4. Ockham s Nominalism: Ockham rejects this entire project as absurd. Against the existence of universals, there are some obvious objections. For instance: (1) Scotus says that you and I share some THING in common our common nature, humanity. But, how in the heck can one individual thing (e.g., humanity) be in many places at once? (2) Scotus says that Socrates IS (i.e., is identical to) his humanity, and that Plato IS (i.e., is identical to) his humanity. They share a common nature, but Socrates and Plato are not identical to each other because Socrates s humanity is formally distinct from Plato s humanity. That is, Socrates s humanity is sort of squished into the form of Socrateity, while Plato s humanity is sort of squished into the form of Platoeity. Ockham rejects formal distinctions. Either (a) Socrates s humanity is numerically distinct from Plato s humanity, or (b) It is not. If (a), then is not really a COMMON nature (or a UNIVERSAL) at all! If (b), then Scotus has not really explained how Socrates and Plato are distinct after all. Scotus seems to want both (a) AND (b) to be true, but this is absurd (says Ockham). He can t have it both ways. 5
6 But, especially interesting are Ockham s objections based on God s omnipotence. As we will continue to see, Ockham takes God s omnipotence very seriously. And the existence of universals seems to hinder God s power: (3) Creation Objection: If God is omnipotent, then He should be able to create a human being ex nihilo (i.e., out of nothingness). However, if universals exist, then God cannot do this. Why not? Let s say that God wants to create Sally. Sally will be composed of humanity + matter. Perhaps God can create the MATTER ex nihilo. But, the form of humanity already exists (since there are already other human beings). Perhaps God could create some NEW form but, then she would not belong to the same species as human beings. In order for Sally to be genuinely human, she must have EXACTLY the same form as you and I. So, God cannot create Sally from nothingness. (4) Annihilation Objection: If God is omnipotent, then He should be able to completely annihilate a human being (i.e., completely reduce them to nothingness) without destroying any other human beings. But, if universals exist, then He cannot do so. Why not? Because, at best, He can only do one of the following (to, e.g., Sarah): (a) God can totally annihilate Sarah. However, in doing so, he also kills every single other human being in the universe. For, in annihilating everything that Sarah is composed of, He has annihilated the universal humanity, which is also in all other humans. (b) God can annihilate Sarah s MATTER, but not her form, thus saving the rest of humanity from death. However, now God has not COMPLETELY annihilated Sarah. Against relations: Elsewhere, Ockham uses similar arguments against other kinds of universals. Keep in mind that, in addition to universals like horseness, proponents of universals also accept the existence of properties and relations, such as redness and brotherhood. But consider: If brotherhood were a real THING, then it stands to reason that an omnipotent God could create it without creating any actual brothers! This is absurd. So, brotherhood is not a real THING that exists. Conclusion: Ockham takes each of these to be a violation of God s omnipotence, and therefore unacceptable. So, he rejects the existence of universals. One more objection: Another worry is that, if there were some THING that all humans are partially composed of and share in common, then Jesus (which Christians take to literally BE God) would be partially composed of the exact same part that, e.g., Judas is composed of namely, human nature. Ockham finds this to be a repugnant claim. 6
7 Nominalism: Ockham rejects the existence of universals. There is no such THING as human-ness (or redness, or circularity, etc.). (Note: Ockham was not the first Nominalist. For instance, Peter Abelard before him proposed something like Ockham s view.) We predicate terms like human and red to objects. But, predicates are just TERMS; i.e., language things. They are not substances out there in the world. You simply can t predicate substances of things. Furthermore, terms are just in our MINDS. There is an activity of the mind where, when two objects resemble one another, we abstract a notion of their similarity and put a label on it, mentally. A universal is nothing more than this mental label. [Note: Originally, Ockham proposed that a universal is a THING in the mind (a thoughtobject ) called a fictum a sort of mental picture. But, later, he rejected even this. There is no THING at all that is a universal. There are just actions of the mind.] In short, the Nominalist believes that there are only objects in the world. Sometimes we put labels on them when they resemble one another. But, terms like human, red, circle, etc. are just that: TERMS; i.e., names, or mere WORDS, for those resemblances. But, out there in the world, humanity is nothing more than the collection of human beings (i.e., those individuals which we have mentally lumped together as seeming to us to bear a certain resemblance to one another). A Contemporary Objection to Haecceities: Another bizarre implication of haecceitism is that the identities of things don t seem to depend on any observable features of those individuals. For instance, imagine me EXACTLY as I am same parents, same fetus, same experiences, same atoms, everything. According to haecceitists, this person might have ALL of that stuff, but still not be Chad. Namely, if he lacks the crucial ingredient: Chaddity. Believe it or not, many philosophers today still believe in haecceities. My dissertation advisor (Graeme Forbes) is a famous opponent of this view. He writes, you are invited to imagine a possible circumstance in which The Eiffel Tower does not exist but in which exactly the same events occur up to and including 30 June 1887, and on July 1 the same 250 men assemble the same 18,000 precisionmanufactured pieces in precisely the same way as they actually did, using precisely the same 2,500,000 rivets in precisely the same positions, under the direction of Gustave Eiffel. You are also to imagine that during the construction period and thereafter, there is to be no further difference between the actual course of events and the imagined possible course of events. Yet The Eiffel Tower is not to exist. (Note: The reason that the Eiffel Tower supposedly wouldn t exist in this scenario is because it has a different haecceity than the tower in the actual world.) 7
8 Is this a possible scenario? That is, is there a possible world where a tower is built in Paris from exactly the same parts, arranged in exactly the same way, built by exactly the same men, according to exactly the same blueprints, designed by exactly the same designer as The Eiffel Tower was actually built and designed by but where that tower is NOT The Eiffel Tower? To Forbes, this seems absurd. If it is, then we must resist haecceitism. Rather, intuitively, it DOES seem as if there can be no difference in identity without any other kind of difference. Why should we care? If haecceitism is true (i.e., if there can be differences in identity without any observable difference), then there is a possible world that is indistinguishable from the actual world that is, every single discernible feature of the actual world is duplicated in that possible world but where the person writing this is YOU, and the person reading it is ME. In short, the haecceitist is committed to the conclusion that I could have lived your life (been born from your parents, had your experiences, looked exactly like you, etc.), and you could have lived mine! To most of us, that seems absurd. Ockham s Razor: By now, you may see why the scientist s claim that, if two hypotheses explain the same phenomenon, we should accept the simpler of the two, has come to be known as Ockham s Razor. As Ockham put it, It is futile to do with more what can be done with fewer. And elsewhere, Plurality should not be posited without necessity. Though this maxim is not unique to Ockham (most before him would have agreed with it), Ockham was perhaps the most devoted to adhering to it. He finds a way to explain the world WITHOUT appealing to the existence of universals or haecceities, and so he carves away these unnecessary entities with his razor. We can do without them. 5. Objections to Nominalism: There are problems with the claims that universals are (a) just the collections of the things themselves, and (b) mind-dependent objects. (a) According to Nominalism, if we destroyed all of the red things, then redness itself would cease to exist. There would be no such thing as redness. Some find this implausible. If so, then universals are not merely the collections of the things themselves. [What do you think?] (b) According to Nominalism, prior to the existence of intelligent beings, there was no such thing as, say, sharks or dinosaurs (since there were no minds to give these categories existence). Furthermore, if no one has seen something red, then nothing in the universe is red. If no one has compared the heights of two things, then giraffes are not taller than squirrels. And so on. This seems implausible. If so, then universals do not depend on minds for their existence. [Is this plausible?] 8
9 There is a further problem regarding (a). What ARE these supposed resemblances that the Nominalist talks about? It is difficult to see how two things could resemble one another if they share nothing (i.e., no THING) in common. Furthermore, if properties are just the collections of the things themselves, then what can the Nominalist say when two seemingly distinct properties share the same members? For, often (always?), groups of objects will resemble one another in MORE THAN ONE WAY. Consider these objects: The above objects resemble one another in MORE THAN ONE WAY (e.g., they are all both red AND round). Imagine that these are the only 4 things that exist. If redness JUST IS the collection of red things, and roundness JUST IS the collection of round things, then we will have no way to distinguish redness from roundness. 9
Properties. If no: Then it seems that they could not really be similar. If yes: Then properties like redness are THINGS.
Properties Things cannot be in two places at once. If my cat, Precious, is in my living room, she can t at exactly the same time also be in YOUR living room! But, properties aren t like that. If I have
More informationWilliam Ockham on Universals
MP_C07.qxd 11/17/06 5:28 PM Page 71 7 William Ockham on Universals Ockham s First Theory: A Universal is a Fictum One can plausibly say that a universal is not a real thing inherent in a subject [habens
More informationII RESEMBLANCE NOMINALISM, CONJUNCTIONS
Meeting of the Aristotelian Society held at Senate House, University of London, on 22 October 2012 at 5:30 p.m. II RESEMBLANCE NOMINALISM, CONJUNCTIONS AND TRUTHMAKERS The resemblance nominalist says that
More informationAquinas, The Divine Nature
Aquinas, The Divine Nature So far we have shown THAT God exists, but we don t yet know WHAT God is like. Here, Aquinas demonstrates attributes of God, who is: (1) Simple (i.e., God has no parts) (2) Perfect
More informationc Peter King, 1987; all rights reserved. WILLIAM OF OCKHAM: ORDINATIO 1 d. 2 q. 6
WILLIAM OF OCKHAM: ORDINATIO 1 d. 2 q. 6 Thirdly, I ask whether something that is universal and univocal is really outside the soul, distinct from the individual in virtue of the nature of the thing, although
More informationPuzzles for Divine Omnipotence & Divine Freedom
Puzzles for Divine Omnipotence & Divine Freedom 1. Defining Omnipotence: A First Pass: God is said to be omnipotent. In other words, God is all-powerful. But, what does this mean? Is the following definition
More information12. A Theistic Argument against Platonism (and in Support of Truthmakers and Divine Simplicity)
Dean W. Zimmerman / Oxford Studies in Metaphysics - Volume 2 12-Zimmerman-chap12 Page Proof page 357 19.10.2005 2:50pm 12. A Theistic Argument against Platonism (and in Support of Truthmakers and Divine
More informationDO WE NEED A THEORY OF METAPHYSICAL COMPOSITION?
1 DO WE NEED A THEORY OF METAPHYSICAL COMPOSITION? ROBERT C. OSBORNE DRAFT (02/27/13) PLEASE DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION I. Introduction Much of the recent work in contemporary metaphysics has been
More informationFirst Treatise <Chapter 1. On the Eternity of Things>
First Treatise 5 10 15 {198} We should first inquire about the eternity of things, and first, in part, under this form: Can our intellect say, as a conclusion known
More informationCreation & necessity
Creation & necessity Today we turn to one of the central claims made about God in the Nicene Creed: that God created all things visible and invisible. In the Catechism, creation is described like this:
More informationAre All Universals Instantiated?
University of Missouri, St. Louis IRL @ UMSL Theses Graduate Works 7-17-2009 Are All Universals Instantiated? Lawrence Joseph Rosenberger University of Missouri-St. Louis Follow this and additional works
More informationFundamentals of Metaphysics
Fundamentals of Metaphysics Objective and Subjective One important component of the Common Western Metaphysic is the thesis that there is such a thing as objective truth. each of our beliefs and assertions
More informationThe Divine Nature. from Summa Theologiae (Part I, Questions 3-11) by Thomas Aquinas (~1265 AD) translated by Brian J.
The Divine Nature from Summa Theologiae (Part I, Questions 3-11) by Thomas Aquinas (~1265 AD) translated by Brian J. Shanley (2006) Question 3. Divine Simplicity Once it is grasped that something exists,
More informationPhilosophy 125 Day 21: Overview
Branden Fitelson Philosophy 125 Lecture 1 Philosophy 125 Day 21: Overview 1st Papers/SQ s to be returned this week (stay tuned... ) Vanessa s handout on Realism about propositions to be posted Second papers/s.q.
More informationAquinas, Hylomorphism and the Human Soul
Aquinas, Hylomorphism and the Human Soul Aquinas asks, What is a human being? A body? A soul? A composite of the two? 1. You Are Not Merely A Body: Like Avicenna, Aquinas argues that you are not merely
More information15 Does God have a Nature?
15 Does God have a Nature? 15.1 Plantinga s Question So far I have argued for a theory of creation and the use of mathematical ways of thinking that help us to locate God. The question becomes how can
More informationc Peter King, 1987; all rights reserved. WILLIAM OF OCKHAM: ORDINATIO 1 d. 2 q. 8
WILLIAM OF OCKHAM: ORDINATIO 1 d. 2 q. 8 Fifthly, I ask whether what is universal [and] univocal is something real existing subjectively somewhere. [ The Principal Arguments ] That it is: The universal
More informationJohn Duns Scotus. 1. His Life and Works. Handout 24. called The Subtle Doctor. born in 1265 (or 1266) in Scotland; died in Cologne in 1308
Handout 24 John Duns Scotus 1. His Life and Works called The Subtle Doctor born in 1265 (or 1266) in Scotland; died in Cologne in 1308 While very young, he entered the Franciscan Order. It appears that
More informationPhilosophy 125 Day 13: Overview
Branden Fitelson Philosophy 125 Lecture 1 Philosophy 125 Day 13: Overview Reminder: Due Date for 1st Papers and SQ s, October 16 (next Th!) Zimmerman & Hacking papers on Identity of Indiscernibles online
More informationAnthony P. Andres. The Place of Conversion in Aristotelian Logic. Anthony P. Andres
[ Loyola Book Comp., run.tex: 0 AQR Vol. W rev. 0, 17 Jun 2009 ] [The Aquinas Review Vol. W rev. 0: 1 The Place of Conversion in Aristotelian Logic From at least the time of John of St. Thomas, scholastic
More informationOn Being and Essence (DE ENTE Et ESSENTIA)
1 On Being and Essence (DE ENTE Et ESSENTIA) By Saint Thomas Aquinas 2 DE ENTE ET ESSENTIA [[1]] Translation 1997 by Robert T. Miller[[2]] Prologue A small error at the outset can lead to great errors
More informationTruthmakers for Negative Existentials
Truthmakers for Negative Existentials 1. Introduction: We have already seen that absences and nothings cause problems for philosophers. Well, they re an especially huge problem for truthmaker theorists.
More informationto representationalism, then we would seem to miss the point on account of which the distinction between direct realism and representationalism was
Intentional Transfer in Averroes, Indifference of Nature in Avicenna, and the Issue of the Representationalism of Aquinas Comments on Max Herrera and Richard Taylor Is Aquinas a representationalist or
More informationIDOLATRY AND RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE
IDOLATRY AND RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE Richard Cross Upholding a univocity theory of religious language does not entail idolatry, because nothing about univocity entails misidentifying God altogether which is
More informationWhat Is the Thingy Illusion and How Does It Mess Up Philosophy?
What Is the Thingy Illusion and How Does It Mess Up Philosophy? Mark F. Sharlow The following is a transcript of an impromptu talk. The transcript has been edited and references have been added. There's
More informationPossibility and Necessity
Possibility and Necessity 1. Modality: Modality is the study of possibility and necessity. These concepts are intuitive enough. Possibility: Some things could have been different. For instance, I could
More informationReview Tutorial (A Whirlwind Tour of Metaphysics, Epistemology and Philosophy of Religion)
Review Tutorial (A Whirlwind Tour of Metaphysics, Epistemology and Philosophy of Religion) Arguably, the main task of philosophy is to seek the truth. We seek genuine knowledge. This is why epistemology
More informationTruth At a World for Modal Propositions
Truth At a World for Modal Propositions 1 Introduction Existentialism is a thesis that concerns the ontological status of individual essences and singular propositions. Let us define an individual essence
More informationNathan Oaklander IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE SPACE?
Nathan Oaklander IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE SPACE? Abstract. One issue that Bergmann discusses in his article "Synthetic A Priori" is the ontology of space. He presents his answer
More informationDartmouth College THE DIVINE SIMPLICITY *
628 THE JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY I do not deny that violence is sometimes even required by public reason and that considerably more violence is allowed by public reason, but I think there can be no doubt
More informationQUESTION 44. The Procession of Creatures from God, and the First Cause of All Beings
QUESTION 44 The Procession of Creatures from God, and the First Cause of All Beings Now that we have considered the divine persons, we will next consider the procession of creatures from God. This treatment
More informationModal Realism, Still At Your Convenience
Modal Realism, Still At Your Convenience Harold Noonan Mark Jago Forthcoming in Analysis Abstract: Divers (2014) presents a set of de re modal truths which, he claims, are inconvenient for Lewisean modal
More informationVol 2 Bk 7 Outline p 486 BOOK VII. Substance, Essence and Definition CONTENTS. Book VII
Vol 2 Bk 7 Outline p 486 BOOK VII Substance, Essence and Definition CONTENTS Book VII Lesson 1. The Primacy of Substance. Its Priority to Accidents Lesson 2. Substance as Form, as Matter, and as Body.
More informationResemblance Nominalism and counterparts
ANAL63-3 4/15/2003 2:40 PM Page 221 Resemblance Nominalism and counterparts Alexander Bird 1. Introduction In his (2002) Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra provides a powerful articulation of the claim that Resemblance
More informationIA Metaphysics & Mind S. Siriwardena (ss2032) 1 Personal Identity. Lecture 4 Animalism
IA Metaphysics & Mind S. Siriwardena (ss2032) 1 Lecture 4 Animalism 1. Introduction In last two lectures we discussed different versions of the psychological continuity view of personal identity. On this
More informationKripke on the distinctness of the mind from the body
Kripke on the distinctness of the mind from the body Jeff Speaks April 13, 2005 At pp. 144 ff., Kripke turns his attention to the mind-body problem. The discussion here brings to bear many of the results
More informationNominalism III: Austere Nominalism 1. Philosophy 125 Day 7: Overview. Nominalism IV: Austere Nominalism 2
Branden Fitelson Philosophy 125 Lecture 1 Philosophy 125 Day 7: Overview Administrative Stuff First Paper Topics and Study Questions will be announced Thursday (9/18) All section locations are now (finally!)
More informationThe Christian God Part I: Metaphysics
The Christian God In The Christian God, Richard Swinburne examines basic metaphysical categories[1]. Only when that task is done does he turn to an analysis of divine properties, the divine nature, and
More informationJohn Buridan on Essence and Existence
MP_C31.qxd 11/23/06 2:37 AM Page 250 31 John Buridan on Essence and Existence In the eighth question we ask whether essence and existence are the same in every thing. And in this question by essence I
More informationP. Weingartner, God s existence. Can it be proven? A logical commentary on the five ways of Thomas Aquinas, Ontos, Frankfurt Pp. 116.
P. Weingartner, God s existence. Can it be proven? A logical commentary on the five ways of Thomas Aquinas, Ontos, Frankfurt 2010. Pp. 116. Thinking of the problem of God s existence, most formal logicians
More informationThe Unmoved Mover (Metaphysics )
The Unmoved Mover (Metaphysics 12.1-6) Aristotle Part 1 The subject of our inquiry is substance; for the principles and the causes we are seeking are those of substances. For if the universe is of the
More informationTrinity & contradiction
Trinity & contradiction Today we ll discuss one of the most distinctive, and philosophically most problematic, Christian doctrines: the doctrine of the Trinity. It is tempting to see the doctrine of the
More informationThe question is concerning truth and it is inquired first what truth is. Now
Sophia Project Philosophy Archives What is Truth? Thomas Aquinas The question is concerning truth and it is inquired first what truth is. Now it seems that truth is absolutely the same as the thing which
More informationTopics and Posterior Analytics. Philosophy 21 Fall, 2004 G. J. Mattey
Topics and Posterior Analytics Philosophy 21 Fall, 2004 G. J. Mattey Logic Aristotle is the first philosopher to study systematically what we call logic Specifically, Aristotle investigated what we now
More informationMind = Brain? Brain Physiology. Materialism = Physicalism. What is materialism? Humans are made of only one kind of stuff-- matter.
Mind = Brain? Materialism = Physicalism What is materialism? Humans are made of only one kind of stuff-- matter. We have a mind, but what we call the mind is really just a complicated arrangement of matter--namely,
More informationLecture 3: Properties II Nominalism & Reductive Realism. Lecture 3: Properties II Nominalism & Reductive Realism
1. Recap of previous lecture 2. Anti-Realism 2.1. Motivations 2.2. Austere Nominalism: Overview, Pros and Cons 3. Reductive Realisms: the Appeal to Sets 3.1. Sets of Objects 3.2. Sets of Tropes 4. Overview
More informationTWO VERSIONS OF HUME S LAW
DISCUSSION NOTE BY CAMPBELL BROWN JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION NOTE MAY 2015 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT CAMPBELL BROWN 2015 Two Versions of Hume s Law MORAL CONCLUSIONS CANNOT VALIDLY
More informationPutnam: Meaning and Reference
Putnam: Meaning and Reference The Traditional Conception of Meaning combines two assumptions: Meaning and psychology Knowing the meaning (of a word, sentence) is being in a psychological state. Even Frege,
More informationPhilosophy 5340 Epistemology Topic 4: Skepticism. Part 1: The Scope of Skepticism and Two Main Types of Skeptical Argument
1. The Scope of Skepticism Philosophy 5340 Epistemology Topic 4: Skepticism Part 1: The Scope of Skepticism and Two Main Types of Skeptical Argument The scope of skeptical challenges can vary in a number
More informationWhat We Are: Our Metaphysical Nature & Moral Implications
What We Are: Our Metaphysical Nature & Moral Implications Julia Lei Western University ABSTRACT An account of our metaphysical nature provides an answer to the question of what are we? One such account
More informationSome Logical Paradoxes from Jean Buridan
Some Logical Paradoxes from Jean Buridan 1. A Chimera is a Chimera: A chimera is a mythological creature with the head of a lion, the body of a goat, and the tail of a snake. Obviously, chimeras do not
More informationModal Realism, Counterpart Theory, and Unactualized Possibilities
This is the author version of the following article: Baltimore, Joseph A. (2014). Modal Realism, Counterpart Theory, and Unactualized Possibilities. Metaphysica, 15 (1), 209 217. The final publication
More informationThe Summa Lamberti on the Properties of Terms
MP_C06.qxd 11/17/06 5:28 PM Page 66 6 The Summa Lamberti on the Properties of Terms [1. General Introduction] (205) Because the logician considers terms, it is appropriate for him to give an account of
More informationG.E. Moore A Refutation of Skepticism
G.E. Moore A Refutation of Skepticism The Argument For Skepticism 1. If you do not know that you are not merely a brain in a vat, then you do not even know that you have hands. 2. You do not know that
More informationOn Truth Thomas Aquinas
On Truth Thomas Aquinas Art 1: Whether truth resides only in the intellect? Objection 1. It seems that truth does not reside only in the intellect, but rather in things. For Augustine (Soliloq. ii, 5)
More informationClass #13 - The Consciousness Theory of the Self Locke, The Prince and the Cobbler Reid, Of Mr. Locke's Account of Our Personal Identity
Philosophy 110W: Introduction to Philosophy Spring 2012 Hamilton College Russell Marcus Class #13 - The Consciousness Theory of the Self Locke, The Prince and the Cobbler Reid, Of Mr. Locke's Account of
More informationThe Five Ways of St. Thomas in proving the existence of
The Language of Analogy in the Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas Moses Aaron T. Angeles, Ph.D. San Beda College The Five Ways of St. Thomas in proving the existence of God is, needless to say, a most important
More information1. Introduction. Against GMR: The Incredulous Stare (Lewis 1986: 133 5).
Lecture 3 Modal Realism II James Openshaw 1. Introduction Against GMR: The Incredulous Stare (Lewis 1986: 133 5). Whatever else is true of them, today s views aim not to provoke the incredulous stare.
More informationSIMPLICITY AND ASEITY. Jeffrey E. Brower. There is a traditional theistic doctrine, known as the doctrine of divine simplicity,
SIMPLICITY AND ASEITY Jeffrey E. Brower There is a traditional theistic doctrine, known as the doctrine of divine simplicity, according to which God is an absolutely simple being, completely devoid of
More informationA Posteriori Necessities
A Posteriori Necessities 1. Introduction: Recall that we distinguished between a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge: A Priori Knowledge: Knowledge acquirable prior to experience; for instance,
More informationAgainst the Vagueness Argument TUOMAS E. TAHKO ABSTRACT
Against the Vagueness Argument TUOMAS E. TAHKO ABSTRACT In this paper I offer a counterexample to the so called vagueness argument against restricted composition. This will be done in the lines of a recent
More informationThe Problem of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom
The Problem of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom Western monotheistic religions (e.g., Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) typically believe that God is a 3-O God. That is, God is omnipotent (all-powerful),
More informationPHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES
PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES Philosophical Perspectives, 25, Metaphysics, 2011 ESSENCE, PLENITUDE, AND PARADOX Sarah-Jane Leslie Princeton University Essentialism in philosophy is the view that there are
More informationStephen Mumford Metaphysics: A Very Short Introduction Oxford University Press, Oxford ISBN: $ pages.
Stephen Mumford Metaphysics: A Very Short Introduction Oxford University Press, Oxford. 2012. ISBN:978-0-19-965712-4. $11.95 113 pages. Stephen Mumford is Professor of Metaphysics at Nottingham University.
More informationBertrand Russell Proper Names, Adjectives and Verbs 1
Bertrand Russell Proper Names, Adjectives and Verbs 1 Analysis 46 Philosophical grammar can shed light on philosophical questions. Grammatical differences can be used as a source of discovery and a guide
More informationSt. Thomas Aquinas Excerpt from Summa Theologica
St. Thomas Aquinas Excerpt from Summa Theologica Part 1, Question 2, Articles 1-3 The Existence of God Because the chief aim of sacred doctrine is to teach the knowledge of God, not only as He is in Himself,
More informationIntrinsic Properties Defined. Peter Vallentyne, Virginia Commonwealth University. Philosophical Studies 88 (1997):
Intrinsic Properties Defined Peter Vallentyne, Virginia Commonwealth University Philosophical Studies 88 (1997): 209-219 Intuitively, a property is intrinsic just in case a thing's having it (at a time)
More informationThe knowledge argument
Michael Lacewing The knowledge argument PROPERTY DUALISM Property dualism is the view that, although there is just one kind of substance, physical substance, there are two fundamentally different kinds
More informationBeing and Substance Aristotle
Being and Substance Aristotle 1. There are several senses in which a thing may be said to be, as we pointed out previously in our book on the various senses of words; for in one sense the being meant is
More informationAnselm of Canterbury, Proslogion, chapters 2-5 & replies
Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion, chapters 2-5 & replies (or, the Ontological Argument for God s Existence) Existing in Understanding vs. Reality: Imagine a magical horse with a horn on its head. Do you
More informationPrimitive Thisness and Primitive Identity Robert Merrihew Adams
Robert Merrihew Adams Let us begin at the end, where Adams states simply the view that, he says, he has defended in his paper: Thisnesses and transworld identities are primitive but logically connected
More informationBOOK REVIEWS. Duke University. The Philosophical Review, Vol. XCVII, No. 1 (January 1988)
manner that provokes the student into careful and critical thought on these issues, then this book certainly gets that job done. On the other hand, one likes to think (imagine or hope) that the very best
More informationPrimitive Thisness and Primitive Identity by Robert Merrihew Adams (1979)
Primitive Thisness and Primitive Identity by Robert Merrihew Adams (1979) Is the world and are all possible worlds constituted by purely qualitative facts, or does thisness hold a place beside suchness
More information5 A Modal Version of the
5 A Modal Version of the Ontological Argument E. J. L O W E Moreland, J. P.; Sweis, Khaldoun A.; Meister, Chad V., Jul 01, 2013, Debating Christian Theism The original version of the ontological argument
More informationOrthodox truthmaker theory cannot be defended by cost/benefit analysis
orthodox truthmaker theory and cost/benefit analysis 45 Orthodox truthmaker theory cannot be defended by cost/benefit analysis PHILIP GOFF Orthodox truthmaker theory (OTT) is the view that: (1) every truth
More informationMerricks on the existence of human organisms
Merricks on the existence of human organisms Cian Dorr August 24, 2002 Merricks s Overdetermination Argument against the existence of baseballs depends essentially on the following premise: BB Whenever
More informationTranscendental Knowledge
1 What Is Metaphysics? Transcendental Knowledge Kinds of Knowledge There is no straightforward answer to the question Is metaphysics possible? because there is no widespread agreement on what the term
More informationQuestions on Book III of the De anima 1
Siger of Brabant Questions on Book III of the De anima 1 Regarding the part of the soul by which it has cognition and wisdom, etc. [De an. III, 429a10] And 2 with respect to this third book there are four
More informationQUESTION 3. God s Simplicity
QUESTION 3 God s Simplicity Once we have ascertained that a given thing exists, we then have to inquire into its mode of being in order to come to know its real definition (quid est). However, in the case
More informationUNCORRECTED PROOF GOD AND TIME. The University of Mississippi
phib_352.fm Page 66 Friday, November 5, 2004 7:54 PM GOD AND TIME NEIL A. MANSON The University of Mississippi This book contains a dozen new essays on old theological problems. 1 The editors have sorted
More informationOverview of Today s Lecture
Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 1 Overview of Today s Lecture Music: Robin Trower, Daydream (King Biscuit Flower Hour concert, 1977) Administrative Stuff (lots of it) Course Website/Syllabus [i.e.,
More informationScience. January 27, 2016
Science January 27, 2016 1 2 Anaxagoras For our purposes, Anaxagoras is interesting as a follower of Parmenides and Zeno. Many of the fragments from Anaxagoras appear to be paraphrases of Parmenides. E.g.:
More informationHOW TO BE (AND HOW NOT TO BE) A NORMATIVE REALIST:
1 HOW TO BE (AND HOW NOT TO BE) A NORMATIVE REALIST: A DISSERTATION OVERVIEW THAT ASSUMES AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE ABOUT MY READER S PHILOSOPHICAL BACKGROUND Consider the question, What am I going to have
More informationOn Truth At Jeffrey C. King Rutgers University
On Truth At Jeffrey C. King Rutgers University I. Introduction A. At least some propositions exist contingently (Fine 1977, 1985) B. Given this, motivations for a notion of truth on which propositions
More informationACTUALISM AND THISNESS*
ROBERT MERRIHEW ADAMS ACTUALISM AND THISNESS* I. THE THESIS My thesis is that all possibilities are purely qualitative except insofar as they involve individuals that actually exist. I have argued elsewhere
More informationWhat conditions does Plato expect a good definition to meet? Is he right to impose them?
What conditions does Plato expect a good definition to meet? Is he right to impose them? In this essay we will be discussing the conditions Plato requires a definition to meet in his dialogue Meno. We
More informationAQUINAS S METAPHYSICS OF MODALITY: A REPLY TO LEFTOW
Jeffrey E. Brower AQUINAS S METAPHYSICS OF MODALITY: A REPLY TO LEFTOW Brian Leftow sets out to provide us with an account of Aquinas s metaphysics of modality. 1 Drawing on some important recent work,
More informationCONSTITUTION AND THE TRINITY: THE BROWER-REA PROPOSAL
CONSTITUTION AND THE TRINITY: THE BROWER-REA PROPOSAL William Hasker Jeffrey Brower and Michael Rea have proposed a model for the Trinity using a particular understanding of the relation of material constitution.
More informationFirst Principles. Principles of Reality. Undeniability.
First Principles. First principles are the foundation of knowledge. Without them nothing could be known (see FOUNDATIONALISM). Even coherentism uses the first principle of noncontradiction to test the
More informationCritical Appreciation of Jonathan Schaffer s The Contrast-Sensitivity of Knowledge Ascriptions Samuel Rickless, University of California, San Diego
Critical Appreciation of Jonathan Schaffer s The Contrast-Sensitivity of Knowledge Ascriptions Samuel Rickless, University of California, San Diego Jonathan Schaffer s 2008 article is part of a burgeoning
More informationFrom: Vance, Chad (2013). In Defense of the New Actualism (dissertation), University of Colorado Boulder. 2.2 Truthmakers for Negative Truths
From: Vance, Chad (2013). In Defense of the New Actualism (dissertation), University of Colorado Boulder. 2.2 Truthmakers for Negative Truths 2.2.1 Four Categories of Negative Truth There are four categories
More informationWhat is real? Heaps, bald things, and tall things
What is real? Heaps, bald things, and tall things Our topic today is another paradox which has been known since ancient times: the paradox of the heap, also called the sorites paradox ( sorites is Greek
More informationNature of Necessity Chapter IV
Nature of Necessity Chapter IV Robert C. Koons Department of Philosophy University of Texas at Austin koons@mail.utexas.edu February 11, 2005 1 Chapter IV. Worlds, Books and Essential Properties Worlds
More informationMind s Eye Idea Object
Do the ideas in our mind resemble the qualities in the objects that caused these ideas in our minds? Mind s Eye Idea Object Does this resemble this? In Locke s Terms Even if we accept that the ideas in
More informationAm I free? Freedom vs. Fate
Am I free? Freedom vs. Fate We ve been discussing the free will defense as a response to the argument from evil. This response assumes something about us: that we have free will. But what does this mean?
More informationproceedings of the aristotelian society
proceedings of the aristotelian society issue i volume cxiii 2012-2013 Resemblance Nominalism, Conjunctions and Truthmakers gonzalo rodriguez-pereyra university of oxford D r a f t P a p e r 1 8 8 8 c
More informationEUTHYPHRO, GOD S NATURE, AND THE QUESTION OF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. An Analysis of the Very Complicated Doctrine of Divine Simplicity.
IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 4, Number 20, May 20 to May 26, 2002 EUTHYPHRO, GOD S NATURE, AND THE QUESTION OF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES An Analysis of the Very Complicated Doctrine of Divine Simplicity by Jules
More informationAristotle and Aquinas
Aristotle and Aquinas G. J. Mattey Spring, 2017 / Philosophy 1 Aristotle as Metaphysician Plato s greatest student was Aristotle (384-322 BC). In metaphysics, Aristotle rejected Plato s theory of forms.
More informationDescartes' Ontological Argument
Descartes' Ontological Argument The essential problem with Anselm's argument is that at the end of it all, the atheist can understand the definition and even have the concept in his or her mind, but still
More informationREVIEW. St. Thomas Aquinas. By RALPH MCINERNY. The University of Notre Dame Press 1982 (reprint of Twayne Publishers 1977). Pp $5.95.
REVIEW St. Thomas Aquinas. By RALPH MCINERNY. The University of Notre Dame Press 1982 (reprint of Twayne Publishers 1977). Pp. 172. $5.95. McInerny has succeeded at a demanding task: he has written a compact
More information