Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Consul]

Consul on this forum has a philosophy that is similar. It is a substance-aspect ontology. If I understand you correctly, aspects are literally nothing in themselves.

My basic ontology is a substance-attribute (object-property) ontology. (As far as polyadic attributes = relations are concerned, I'm skeptical about their existence.) I'm a realist about attributes/properties, but I regard them as particulars (called modes/tropes) and not as universals. Moreover, I'm not a maximalist about real properties; that is, I don't believe that all concepts or predicates represent real properties. I even tend toward minimalism, the view that the realm of real properties is "sparsely" populated rather than "abundantly", such that most concepts or predicates don't represent real properties. As for these distinctions, see: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties/#ExiCon

I have a different ontology. There is neither substance nor aspect in my philosophy.

You do believe in particulars, don't you? If they aren't substances or objects, what kind of entities are they?

[Felix]

GaryLouisSmith: Yes, there is a Platonic Form of Soup. That was the great advance of Postmodern Pop Art. It brought the whole commercial world into the Realm of Platonic Forms.

The can the soup came in, not the soup itself, hopefully you can recognize the difference. One might say that Jackson Pollock painted soup but it had no particular form, Platonic or otherwise.

[Consul]

Yes, there is a Platonic Form of Soup.

That makes no sense. Soup as liquid food was invented by us. It's not itself a natural kind of stuff, but a mixture of masses of various natural kinds of stuff. (A canned soup may also include non-natural flavor enhancers.)

[Felix]

Yes, Warhol's Campbell Soup can could have contained nothing but air, next Gary will tell us that there is a Platonic form of air or empty space.

[Consul]

Yes, Warhol's Campbell Soup can could have contained nothing but air, next Gary will tell us that there is a Platonic form of air or empty space.

Air is a mixture of gases:

"Dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

These gases are natural kinds of stuff; and those who believe that kinds are universals sui generis call them substantial universals or substantial forms. From the Platonic perspective, kinds (species, genera) are abstract, (spacetime-)transcendent universals which needn't have instances; and from the Aristotelian perspective, they are concrete, (spacetime-)immanent universals which must have instances.
(There's a third perspective, which is half Platonic and half Aristotelian: Universals are abstract, non-spatiotemporal entities, but they cannot exist without being instantiated by concrete, spatiotemporal entities. This is Reinhardt Grossmann's and Jonathan Lowe's view.)

[Belindi]

Regarding what is natural, soup is as natural as any of its ingredients. Each ingredient of soup has an essence. Soup has an essence. Platonic Forms are essences of things. Events too have essences.

Essences are abstracted from particulars.


For a Platonist there is an essential Christmas dinner at Mum's house, and there is also an essential Mum's house. There is an essential Spitfire aeroplane and there is also an essential aeroplane.In other words essences are infinite in number. Every entity and every event can be abstracted from every other entity or event in the world of Platonic Forms.

Universals are essences by reason of their abstraction from particulars.

There is nothing that lacks essence be it universal, event, entity, or fantasy . For this reason the notion of essence is empty.
I would like a Platonist to be able to say what exactly defines a Platonic Form such that it is other than Aristotle's formal cause.

[GaryLouisSmith]

Yes, Warhol's Campbell Soup can could have contained nothing but air, next Gary will tell us that there is a Platonic form of air or empty space.

Of course there is a Platonic Form of air and empty space. There are also the Platonic Forms of can opener and of cork screw, of labels on the can, of the font type used and of the laser printer used to make them and the electrical cord and gears and on-off switch on it. There is a Platonic of every imaginable thing in this modern/postmodern world. The Forms all repeat as this and that and that and that. The contemporary world is a great showcase of Eternal Forms. We are overwhelmed by the Immensity of it all. Those Forms, being eternal, have always atemporally existed, and it is only now that they have become manifest. So many forms have disappeared from view and an infinite number remain to appear. The poetry of Being is a Great List of Things.

I am obviously not a naturalist, but you guys already knew that. Plato would probably be aghast at all the Forms named after him and he may not approve, who knows? One cannot keep hold of one’s ideas after they are released into the wild. Times change and the gods romp. Yes, I am a theological realist. All the Forms of the commercial world are real and as spirits they come and possess us. Witness the trance you fall into when you enter a shopping mall.

[Belindi]

Gary, what if any is the difference between the Forms you describe and Aristotle's formal cause?

I hope you won't get cross again at mention of Aristotle.

By the way, is there a Form of an event such as the event of you making tea , or viewing a boy?

That last description of yours of the Forms is like everything is an idea in the mind of god.

[GaryLouisSmith]

Gary, what if any is the difference between the Forms you describe and Aristotle's formal cause?

I hope you won't get cross again at mention of Aristotle.

By the way, is there a Form of an event such as the event of you making tea , or viewing a boy?

That last description of yours of the Forms is like everything is an idea in the mind of god.

A Platonic Form is SEPARATE from any material individual that participates in it. I'm not a student of Aristotle, but I imagine a formal cause as not separate. I never use the notion of cause. There is no causal nexus in my philosophy. Sure there is a Platonic Form of making tea, viewing a boy, washing the dishes, cleaning out the gutter, driving your car through Drive-Thru, breaking your leg, drying your hair, cursing at the weather and on and on. I would not say that the Forms are in the Mind of God. I have written that they do hang of the Cheek of Night. Maybe His Cheek. I feel no need to locate them anywhere.

[Consul]

Regarding what is natural, soup is as natural as any of its ingredients. Each ingredient of soup has an essence. Soup has an essence. Platonic Forms are essences of things. Events too have essences.
Essences are abstracted from particulars.
Universals are essences by reason of their abstraction from particulars.
There is nothing that lacks essence be it universal, event, entity, or fantasy . For this reason the notion of essence is empty.

If an entity's essence is the sum of its essential properties, and properties are (nonsubstantial) universals, then essences are composed of (nonsubstantial) universals. And if one believes in nonsimple, i.e. compound or complex, universals (which are sums of two or more simple universals), then one can say that essences are (identical to) compound or complex universals. However, this doesn't mean that "essence" and "universal" are synonyms, or that all universals are essences.
(If there are substantial universals, i.e. kinds, they may be said to have essences, but they aren't essences.)

[GaryLouisSmith]

Regarding what is natural, soup is as natural as any of its ingredients. Each ingredient of soup has an essence. Soup has an essence. Platonic Forms are essences of things. Events too have essences.
Essences are abstracted from particulars.
Universals are essences by reason of their abstraction from particulars.
There is nothing that lacks essence be it universal, event, entity, or fantasy . For this reason the notion of essence is empty.

If an entity's essence is the sum of its essential properties, and properties are (nonsubstantial) universals, then essences are composed of (nonsubstantial) universals. And if one believes in nonsimple, i.e. compound or complex, universals (which are sums of two or more simple universals), then one can say that essences are (identical to) compound or complex universals. However, this doesn't mean that "essence" and "universal" are synonyms, or that all universals are essences.
(If there are substantial universals, i.e. kinds, they may be said to have essences, but they aren't essences.)

This reminds me of when I used to read scholastic philosophy and it used to drive me crazy. People who publish scholastic dictionaries or glossaries, however, have an opportunity to make a lot of money here. Lyrical Platonism is much more attractive to me. There is no disputing taste, though. Carry on, if all that turns you on.

[Consul]

This reminds me of when I used to read scholastic philosophy and it used to drive me crazy. People who publish scholastic dictionaries or glossaries, however, have an opportunity to make a lot of money here. Lyrical Platonism is much more attractive to me. There is no disputing taste, though. Carry on, if all that turns you on.

Yes, analytic ontology is (and can't help being) scholastic.

[GaryLouisSmith]

This reminds me of when I used to read scholastic philosophy and it used to drive me crazy. People who publish scholastic dictionaries or glossaries, however, have an opportunity to make a lot of money here. Lyrical Platonism is much more attractive to me. There is no disputing taste, though. Carry on, if all that turns you on.

Yes, analytic ontology is (and can't help being) scholastic.

I do analytic philosophy, that is to say I take things apart into their ontological pieces, and I think I have avoided being scholastic.

[Belindi]

Consul wrote:

If an entity's essence is the sum of its essential properties, and properties are (nonsubstantial) universals, then essences are composed of (nonsubstantial) universals.

Yes, but any idea might be entity or universal whatever is the intended meaning. For instance take the entity 'daisy'. Prima says "daisy is this little white flower" Secunda says " my freshly ironed cloth is daisy" . Tertia says " I shall daisy my morning". True, Secunda's and Tertia's meanings are eccentric but they aren't unreasonable and their syntax is okay.

[Belindi]

GaryLouisSmith wrote:

There is no causal nexus in my philosophy.

Then viewing a boy, making tea, breaking your leg, and so forth are not necessary events. As not necessary events they are not events in the mind of god.

As not events in the mind of god they nevertheless may exist causally in human experience. Surely you feel intentions? Your intentions are final causes of any event that concerns you. Including breaking your leg; you intended to climb that tree you fell out of.