Pure Phenomenology. Metaphysics
The bundle theory, a theory in metaphysics and ontology about objecthood, is the view that an object is a bundle, or collection, of properties. Hence, one cannot even conceive of a propertyless object: the object just is its properties, and so if you take away its properties you take away the object itself.
To illustrate, think of an apple, but do not think of its color, of its shape, of the fact that it is a kind of fruit, of the cells that it's made of, of its taste, and so on. Think of the apple, but do not think of any of its properties. Is that possible? The bundle theorist says it is not possible. So the apple is no more than a collection of properties. There isn't any more to the apple than that. In particular, there is no "substance" that these properties inhere in.
1 Arguments for the bundle theory
The most common sort of argument for the bundle theory capitalizes on the above insights. The basic idea is that however we might choose to conceive of, or describe a thing, it will be a conception, or a description, of a property of a thing. In other words, there is nothing that can be described, or even conceived, about a thing, which is not a property of the thing. (Or a relation of the thing, but we can ignore relations for simplicity's sake.) We cannot have the slightest idea of any aspect of the thing that is not a property of it.
This implies, the bundle theorist maintains, that we cannot have any conception whatsoever of a "bare particular." As the English philosopher John Locke said, a substance by itself, apart from its properties, is "something, I know not what." The only way that we can conceive of an object is by conceiving of its properties.
Therefore, the bundle theorist concludes, to conceive of an object just is to conceive of a bundle of properties. The only conception we can have of an object is as a bundle of properties. The bundle theory wins out, on this view, simply because it is the only game in town: the only way we can conceive of things is as bundles of properties. We could not imagine a bare particular, a propertyless substance, even if we tried. So the bundle theory is correct and the substance theory is wrong.
Many philosophers in the Anglo-American tradition today think this argument, or one much like it, is a very powerful argument. How can the substance theorist reply? How could one hold onto the substance theory if one had no conception of substance as distinct from properties and relations?
It seems that the best that we can do is to say we have a very basic sort of idea of substance; namely, substance is the subject in which properties inhere. There, it seems, is a basic idea we can have. So the substance theorist maintains: conceded, we conceive of substances by conceiving of their properties, but neverthleless, the thing we are conceiving of is the thing that has those properties. That thing is different from the properties. So we can have a notion of a substance as "the subject in which properties inhere." The substance theorist would maintain that we should just content ourselves that we are surrounded by lots of examples of subjects in which properties inhere. All the bodies around us are subjects in which properties inhere. The bundle theorist is not at all satisfied with that view.
Hence, I would speculate that my fantasies do not have the intrinsic properties of a thing. But thats just a guess because I really do not know a darn thing about the issue for the most part, so to speak, as it were, in a word.
--
You Really Look Marvelous Today!
Yours True Liars,
SoundaryaNayaki സൌണ്ടാര്യനായകി சௌந்தர்யநாயகி
Anna Justin അണ്ണാ ജസ്റിന് அன்னா ஜஸ்டின்
We are the perfect liars; don't try to find any truth in our words!
................................................
"He looked at her as a man looks at a faded flower he has gathered, with difficulty recognizing in it the beauty for which he picked and ruined it!"
................................................
Why can't you be the King/Queen of Justice?
................................................
-----------------------------------------------------
Is it impossible to make teaching and learning simpler?
Find the analytical wiki [ http://analytical.wikia.com ] which is intended to make teaching and learning simpler.
On the top left of the homepage you can see the "search analytical wiki" search box.
Enter the search terms like strawberry, gooseberry, apple fruit, orange fruit, watermelon so that your children gets the basic ideas about things and go ahead with the advanced topics like computer, rocket, DNA ...
Your children would grasp the ideas very very quickly.
Just experiment yourself with analytical wiki and give me your feedback so that its usability could be improved.
-----------------------------------------------------
The bundle theory, a theory in metaphysics and ontology about objecthood, is the view that an object is a bundle, or collection, of properties. Hence, one cannot even conceive of a propertyless object: the object just is its properties, and so if you take away its properties you take away the object itself.
To illustrate, think of an apple, but do not think of its color, of its shape, of the fact that it is a kind of fruit, of the cells that it's made of, of its taste, and so on. Think of the apple, but do not think of any of its properties. Is that possible? The bundle theorist says it is not possible. So the apple is no more than a collection of properties. There isn't any more to the apple than that. In particular, there is no "substance" that these properties inhere in.
1 Arguments for the bundle theory
The most common sort of argument for the bundle theory capitalizes on the above insights. The basic idea is that however we might choose to conceive of, or describe a thing, it will be a conception, or a description, of a property of a thing. In other words, there is nothing that can be described, or even conceived, about a thing, which is not a property of the thing. (Or a relation of the thing, but we can ignore relations for simplicity's sake.) We cannot have the slightest idea of any aspect of the thing that is not a property of it.
This implies, the bundle theorist maintains, that we cannot have any conception whatsoever of a "bare particular." As the English philosopher John Locke said, a substance by itself, apart from its properties, is "something, I know not what." The only way that we can conceive of an object is by conceiving of its properties.
Therefore, the bundle theorist concludes, to conceive of an object just is to conceive of a bundle of properties. The only conception we can have of an object is as a bundle of properties. The bundle theory wins out, on this view, simply because it is the only game in town: the only way we can conceive of things is as bundles of properties. We could not imagine a bare particular, a propertyless substance, even if we tried. So the bundle theory is correct and the substance theory is wrong.
Many philosophers in the Anglo-American tradition today think this argument, or one much like it, is a very powerful argument. How can the substance theorist reply? How could one hold onto the substance theory if one had no conception of substance as distinct from properties and relations?
It seems that the best that we can do is to say we have a very basic sort of idea of substance; namely, substance is the subject in which properties inhere. There, it seems, is a basic idea we can have. So the substance theorist maintains: conceded, we conceive of substances by conceiving of their properties, but neverthleless, the thing we are conceiving of is the thing that has those properties. That thing is different from the properties. So we can have a notion of a substance as "the subject in which properties inhere." The substance theorist would maintain that we should just content ourselves that we are surrounded by lots of examples of subjects in which properties inhere. All the bodies around us are subjects in which properties inhere. The bundle theorist is not at all satisfied with that view.
Hence, I would speculate that my fantasies do not have the intrinsic properties of a thing. But thats just a guess because I really do not know a darn thing about the issue for the most part, so to speak, as it were, in a word.
--
You Really Look Marvelous Today!
Yours True Liars,
SoundaryaNayaki സൌണ്ടാര്യനായകി சௌந்தர்யநாயகி
Anna Justin അണ്ണാ ജസ്റിന് அன்னா ஜஸ்டின்
We are the perfect liars; don't try to find any truth in our words!
................................................
"He looked at her as a man looks at a faded flower he has gathered, with difficulty recognizing in it the beauty for which he picked and ruined it!"
................................................
Why can't you be the King/Queen of Justice?
................................................
-----------------------------------------------------
Is it impossible to make teaching and learning simpler?
Find the analytical wiki [ http://analytical.wikia.com ] which is intended to make teaching and learning simpler.
On the top left of the homepage you can see the "search analytical wiki" search box.
Enter the search terms like strawberry, gooseberry, apple fruit, orange fruit, watermelon so that your children gets the basic ideas about things and go ahead with the advanced topics like computer, rocket, DNA ...
Your children would grasp the ideas very very quickly.
Just experiment yourself with analytical wiki and give me your feedback so that its usability could be improved.
-----------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment
Set all books on fire because no knowledge in them can be repeated and no knowledge in them should be repeated. Do not listen to your teachers or pastors, or mom and dad because none of their knowledge can be repeated and none of their knowledge should be repeated. But, do not forget to buy our books because we need your money. Do not forget to send your children to our schools and colleges, because we need your money. Listen to us, because we want you and your children to be our employees, slaves.