DOCSLIB.ORG

Discourse on Metaphysics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Discourse on Metaphysics Discourse on Metaphysics G. W. Leibniz Copyright © Jonathan Bennett 2017. All rights reserved [Brackets] enclose editorial explanations. Small ·dots· enclose material that has been added, but can be read as though it were part of the original text. Occasional •bullets, and also indenting of passages that are not quotations, are meant as aids to grasping the structure of a sentence or a thought.—-The division into sections is Leibniz’s; the division of some sections into paragraphs is not. Leibniz wrote brief summaries of the 37 sections of this work, but did not include them in the work itself. Some editors preface each section with its summary, but that interrupts the flow. In this version the summaries are given at the end. First launched: September 2004 Last amended: July 2007 Contents Sections 1–13 1 Sections 14–23 9 Sections 24–37 17 Leibniz’s summaries 27 Discourse on Metaphysics G. W. Leibniz Sections 1–13 1. The most widely accepted and sharpest notion of God that saw everything that he had made·, and, behold, it was very we have can be expressed like this: good’ (Genesis 1:31)—Scripture treats God as like a man; God is an absolutely perfect being; but its purpose in doing this appears to be to get across the but though this is widely accepted, its consequences haven’t point that a thing’s excellence can be seen by looking just been well enough thought out. As a start on exploring at the thing itself, without reference to the entirely external them, let us note that there are various completely different fact about what caused it. Reinforcing that point is this one: ways of being perfect, and that God has them all, each in the works must bear the imprint of the workman, because the highest degree. We also need to understand what a we can learn who he was just by inspecting them. I have to perfection is. Here is one pretty good indicator: a property say that the contrary opinion strikes me as very dangerous, is not a perfection unless there is a highest degree of it; and as coming close to the view of the Spinozists that the so number and shape are not perfections, because there beauty of the universe, and the goodness we attribute to cannot possibly be a largest number or a largest thing of a God’s works, are merely the illusions of people who conceive given shape—·that is, a largest triangle, or square, or the God as being like themselves. Furthermore, if you say ·as like·. But there is nothing impossible about the greatest Descartes did· that things are good not because •they match • knowledge or about omnipotence [here = ‘greatest possible power’]. up to objective standards of goodness, but only because God So power and knowledge are perfections, and God has them chose them, you will unthinkingly destroy all God’s love and in unlimited form. It follows that the actions of God, who is all his glory. For why praise him for what he has done, if he supremely—indeed infinitely—wise, are completely perfect. would be equally praiseworthy for doing just the opposite? This is not just metaphysical perfection, but also the moral Where will his justice and wisdom be, kind. His moral perfection, so far as it concerns us, amounts if there is only a kind of despotic power, if reason’s to this: the more we come to know and understand God’s place is taken by will, and if justice is tyrannically works, the more inclined we shall be to find them excellent, defined as what best pleases the most powerful? and to give us everything we could have wished. [Leibniz here relies on his view that it is through reason that we learn 2. Some people—·including Descartes·—hold that there are what things are good.] And another point: it seems that any no rules of goodness and perfection in the nature of things, act of the will presupposes some reason for it—a reason or in God’s ideas of them, and that in calling the things God that naturally precedes the act—·so that God’s choices must made ‘good’ all we mean is that God made them. I am far come from his reasons for them, which involve his knowledge from agreeing with this. If it were right, then God would not of what would· be good; so they can’t be the sources of have needed after the creation to ‘see that they were good’, as the goodness of things. That is why I find it weird when Holy Scripture says he did, because he already knew that the Descartes says that the eternal truths of metaphysics and things in question were his work. In saying this—·‘And God geometry, and therefore also the rules of goodness, justice, 1 Discourse on Metaphysics G. W. Leibniz and perfection, are brought about by God’s will. Against this, in accordance with sovereign reason. For the view that they seem to me to be results of his •understanding, and no God sometimes does something without having any reason more to depend on his •will than his intrinsic nature does. for his choice, besides seeming to be impossible, is hardly 3. Nor could I ever accept the view of some recent philoso- compatible with his glory. Suppose that God, facing a choice phers who have the nerve to maintain that God’s creation between A and B, opts for A without having any reason for is not utterly perfect, and that he could have acted much preferring it to B. I see nothing to praise in that, because all better. This opinion, it seems to me, has consequences that praise should be grounded in some reason, and in this case are completely contrary to the glory of God. Just as a lesser we have stipulated that there is none. By contrast, I hold evil contains an element of good, so a lesser good contains that God does nothing for which he does not deserve to be an element of evil. To act with fewer perfections than one glorified. could have done is to act imperfectly; showing an architect 4. The love that we owe to God, above all things, is based that he could have done his work better is finding fault with (I think) on our grasp of the great truth that God always it. Furthermore, this opinion goes against holy scripture’s acts in the most perfect and desirable way possible. For a assurance of the goodness of God’s works. ·That goodness lover looks for satisfaction in the happiness or perfection of can’t consist simply in the fact that the works could have the loved one and of his actions. Friendship is wanting the been worse; and here is why·. Whatever God’s work was same things and not-wanting the same things. And I think like, it would always have been good in comparison with it will be hard to love God properly without being disposed some possibilities, because there is no limit to how bad to want what he wants, even if one had the power to get things could be. But being praiseworthy in this way is hardly something different. Indeed, those who are not satisfied with being praiseworthy at all! I believe one could find countless what God does are like malcontent subjects whose mind-set passages in the holy scriptures and the writings of the holy is not much different from a rebel’s. These principles lead fathers that support my opinion, and hardly any to support me to maintain that loving God requires a certain attitude the modern view to which I have referred—a view that I to everything that happens to us through his will: not just think was never heard of in ancient times. It has arisen passively accepting it because one has no alternative, but merely because we are not well enough acquainted with the being truly satisfied with it. I am saying this about the general harmony of the universe and of the hidden reasons past; for we shouldn’t be quietists about the future, stupidly for God’s conduct; and that makes us recklessly judge that waiting with folded arms for what God will do, as in the many things could have been improved. Furthermore, these fallacy of ‘the argument for idleness’ (as the ancients called moderns argue—subtly but not soundly—from the false it). So far as we can judge what God wants, in a general way, premise that however perfect a thing is, there is always we should act in accordance with that, doing our very best to something still more perfect. They also think that their view contribute to the general good, and in particular to adorning provides for God’s freedom, ·through the idea that if God and perfecting the things that concern us—the things that is free, it must be up to him whether he acts perfectly or are within reach. The outcome may show that in a particular not·; but really it is the highest freedom to act perfectly, instance God didn’t want our good will to have its effect, but 2 Discourse on Metaphysics G. W. Leibniz it doesn’t follow that he didn’t want us to do what we did. costs him nothing—even less than it costs a philosopher ·or On the contrary, as he is the best of masters, he never asks scientist· to invent theories out of which to build his imag- more than the right intention, and it is up to him to know inary world—for God can bring a real world into existence when and where good intentions should succeed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Autonomy and Republicanism: Immanuel Kant's Philosophy of Freedom Author(S): Heiner Bielefeldt Source: Political Theory, Vol
    Autonomy and Republicanism: Immanuel Kant's Philosophy of Freedom Author(s): Heiner Bielefeldt Source: Political Theory, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Aug., 1997), pp. 524-558 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/191892 Accessed: 25-05-2018 14:18 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/191892?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory This content downloaded from 81.157.207.121 on Fri, 25 May 2018 14:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms AUTONOMY AND REPUBLICANISM Immanuel Kant's Philosophy of Freedom HEINER BIELEFELDT University of Bielefeld INTRODUCTION: THE PARADOX OF LIBERALISM Since its origins in early modernity, liberalism has always been a hotly debated issue. A charge frequently brought forward is that liberalism mirrors a lack of ethical substance in modern society, a society which seemingly loses its inner normative cohesiveness and hence can be held together only by a set of abstract procedural rules.
    [Show full text]
  • Defending the Subjective Component of Susan Wolf's
    Defending the Subjective Component of Susan Wolf’s “Fitting Fulfillment View” About Meaning in Life. Andreas Hjälmarö Andreas Hjälmarö Kandidatuppsats Filosofi, 15 hp. Ht 2016 Handledare Frans Svensson Umeå Universitet, Umeå Table of content Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Background ...................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 The question .................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Common answers .......................................................................................................................... 8 The nihilistic view ............................................................................................................................ 8 The super-naturalistic view ............................................................................................................. 8 The naturalistic view ....................................................................................................................... 9 2.3 Wolf’s view – a combination ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Intentionality in Kant and Wittgensetin
    Journal of Undergraduate Research at Minnesota State University, Mankato Volume 6 Article 5 2006 Intentionality in Kant and Wittgensetin Ryan Feldbrugge Minnesota State University, Mankato Follow this and additional works at: https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/jur Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Feldbrugge, Ryan (2006) "Intentionality in Kant and Wittgensetin," Journal of Undergraduate Research at Minnesota State University, Mankato: Vol. 6 , Article 5. Available at: https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/jur/vol6/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Undergraduate Research Center at Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Undergraduate Research at Minnesota State University, Mankato by an authorized editor of Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato. Feldbrugge: Intentionality in Kant and Wittgensetin INTENTIONALITY IN KANT AND WITTGENSTEIN Ryan Feldbrugge (Philosophy) Dr. Richard Liebendorfer, Faculty Mentor, Philosophy How is thought about and experience of a world possible? This has been the framing question of the present work and it is generally understood as the problem of intentionality. The more specific problem dealt with has been whether or not intentionality has an internal structure that can be made explicit through science, particularly cognitive science. In his Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant outlines an internal, mental structure that, when imposed on our sensory data, makes thought about and experience of a world possible, which can be viewed as highly anticipatory of modern cognitive science. On the other hand, there are a number of philosophers who have it that the structure of intentionality cannot be made explicit nor can it be understood within science, notably Ludwig Wittgenstein.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Chemistry
    Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Chemistry Jaap van Brakel Abstract: In this paper I assess the relation between philosophy of chemistry and (general) philosophy of science, focusing on those themes in the philoso- phy of chemistry that may bring about major revisions or extensions of cur- rent philosophy of science. Three themes can claim to make a unique contri- bution to philosophy of science: first, the variety of materials in the (natural and artificial) world; second, extending the world by making new stuff; and, third, specific features of the relations between chemistry and physics. Keywords : philosophy of science, philosophy of chemistry, interdiscourse relations, making stuff, variety of substances . 1. Introduction Chemistry is unique and distinguishes itself from all other sciences, with respect to three broad issues: • A (variety of) stuff perspective, requiring conceptual analysis of the notion of stuff or material (Sections 4 and 5). • A making stuff perspective: the transformation of stuff by chemical reaction or phase transition (Section 6). • The pivotal role of the relations between chemistry and physics in connection with the question how everything fits together (Section 7). All themes in the philosophy of chemistry can be classified in one of these three clusters or make contributions to general philosophy of science that, as yet , are not particularly different from similar contributions from other sci- ences (Section 3). I do not exclude the possibility of there being more than three clusters of philosophical issues unique to philosophy of chemistry, but I am not aware of any as yet. Moreover, highlighting the issues discussed in Sections 5-7 does not mean that issues reviewed in Section 3 are less im- portant in revising the philosophy of science.
    [Show full text]
  • Normative Perfectionism and the Kantian Tradition
    volume 19, no. 45 erfectionist ethical theories ground moral demands in the per- october 2019 fection or full realization of one’s essential nature.1 Perfection- P ism has a rich history. Perfectionist ideas can be found in Aristo- tle, the Stoics, Maimonides, Aquinas, Malebranche, Spinoza, Leibniz, von Humboldt, J. S. Mill, F. H. Bradley, T. H. Green, Nietzsche, and Marx, among others. Though individual perfectionist figures have received significant attention, their perfectionism has not always enjoyed the Normative Perfectionism same focus. Perfectionism has not been studied thoroughly as a dis- tinctive tradition, and it remains a neglected option in contemporary moral and political philosophy.2 This neglect may reflect doubts about the justification, content, and implications of perfectionist ideals. and the Kantian Tradition Different conceptions of perfectionism result from different con- ceptions of human nature. Some perfectionists and their critics un- derstand human nature as a biological kind. However, that conception of perfectionism gives rise to legitimate foundational doubts about whether there is anything substantive that is essential to human na- ture and whether, if there is, it would be normatively compelling. A different strand in the perfectionist tradition grounds perfectionist ide- als in a normative conception of human nature as involving personal- ity or agency. Normative perfectionism is a distinctive conception within 1. An earlier version of this material was presented at Sheffield University as part of a 2014 conference on Post-Kantian Perfectionism; a 2015 University of Pennsylvania conference on Ancient and Modern Conceptions of Happiness; David O. Brink Ohio and St. Louis Universities; a 2016 UCSD conference, Perfectionism: Ancient and Modern; the Chinese University of Hong Kong; and the 2019 University of California San Diego Pacific Division Meetings of the APA.
    [Show full text]
  • The Universe, Life and Everything…
    Our current understanding of our world is nearly 350 years old. Durston It stems from the ideas of Descartes and Newton and has brought us many great things, including modern science and & increases in wealth, health and everyday living standards. Baggerman Furthermore, it is so engrained in our daily lives that we have forgotten it is a paradigm, not fact. However, there are some problems with it: first, there is no satisfactory explanation for why we have consciousness and experience meaning in our The lives. Second, modern-day physics tells us that observations Universe, depend on characteristics of the observer at the large, cosmic Dialogues on and small, subatomic scales. Third, the ongoing humanitarian and environmental crises show us that our world is vastly The interconnected. Our understanding of reality is expanding to Universe, incorporate these issues. In The Universe, Life and Everything... our Changing Dialogues on our Changing Understanding of Reality, some of the scholars at the forefront of this change discuss the direction it is taking and its urgency. Life Understanding Life and and Sarah Durston is Professor of Developmental Disorders of the Brain at the University Medical Centre Utrecht, and was at the Everything of Reality Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in 2016/2017. Ton Baggerman is an economic psychologist and psychotherapist in Tilburg. Everything ISBN978-94-629-8740-1 AUP.nl 9789462 987401 Sarah Durston and Ton Baggerman The Universe, Life and Everything… The Universe, Life and Everything… Dialogues on our Changing Understanding of Reality Sarah Durston and Ton Baggerman AUP Contact information for authors Sarah Durston: [email protected] Ton Baggerman: [email protected] Cover design: Suzan Beijer grafisch ontwerp, Amersfoort Lay-out: Crius Group, Hulshout Amsterdam University Press English-language titles are distributed in the US and Canada by the University of Chicago Press.
    [Show full text]
  • Models of Sociality After Idealism in Gadamer, Levinas, Rosenzweig, and Bonhoeffer Christopher J
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School November 2017 From Object to Other: Models of Sociality after Idealism in Gadamer, Levinas, Rosenzweig, and Bonhoeffer Christopher J. King University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the Philosophy Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Scholar Commons Citation King, Christopher J., "From Object to Other: Models of Sociality after Idealism in Gadamer, Levinas, Rosenzweig, and Bonhoeffer" (2017). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/7047 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. From Object to Other: Models of Sociality after Idealism in Gadamer, Levinas, Rosenzweig, and Bonhoeffer by Christopher J. King A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy with a concentration in Philosophy and Religion College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Co-Major Professor: Lee Braver, Ph.D. Co-Major Professor: Michael DeJonge, Ph.D. Cass Fisher, Ph.D. Michael Morris, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 3, 2017 Keywords: ontology, dialogue, intersubjectivity, anthropology,
    [Show full text]
  • David Lewis on Convention
    David Lewis on Convention Ernie Lepore and Matthew Stone Center for Cognitive Science Rutgers University David Lewis’s landmark Convention starts its exploration of the notion of a convention with a brilliant insight: we need a distinctive social competence to solve coordination problems. Convention, for Lewis, is the canonical form that this social competence takes when it is grounded in agents’ knowledge and experience of one another’s self-consciously flexible behavior. Lewis meant for his theory to describe a wide range of cultural devices we use to act together effectively; but he was particularly concerned in applying this notion to make sense of our knowledge of meaning. In this chapter, we give an overview of Lewis’s theory of convention, and explore its implications for linguistic theory, and especially for problems at the interface of the semantics and pragmatics of natural language. In §1, we discuss Lewis’s understanding of coordination problems, emphasizing how coordination allows for a uniform characterization of practical activity and of signaling in communication. In §2, we introduce Lewis’s account of convention and show how he uses it to make sense of the idea that a linguistic expression can come to be associated with its meaning by a convention. Lewis’s account has come in for a lot of criticism, and we close in §3 by addressing some of the key difficulties in thinking of meaning as conventional in Lewis’s sense. The critical literature on Lewis’s account of convention is much wider than we can fully survey in this chapter, and so we recommend for a discussion of convention as a more general phenomenon Rescorla (2011).
    [Show full text]
  • 2. Aristotle's Concept of the State
    Page No.13 2. Aristotle's concept of the state Olivera Z. Mijuskovic Full Member International Association of Greek Philosophy University of Athens, Greece ORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5950-7146 URL: http://worldphilosophynetwork.weebly.com E-Mail: [email protected] Abstract: In contrast to a little bit utopian standpoint offered by Plato in his teachings about the state or politeia where rulers aren`t “in love with power but in virtue”, Aristotle's teaching on the same subject seems very realistic and pragmatic. In his most important writing in this field called "Politics", Aristotle classified authority in the form of two main parts: the correct authority and moose authority. In this sense, correct forms of government are 1.basileus, 2.aristocracy and 3.politeia. These forms of government are based on the common good. Bad or moose forms of government are those that are based on the property of an individual or small governmental structures and they are: 1.tiranny, 2.oligarchy and 3.democracy. Also, Aristotle's political thinking is not separate from the ethical principles so he states that the government should be reflected in the true virtue that is "law" or the "golden mean". Keywords: Government; stat; , virtue; democracy; authority; politeia; golden mean. Vol. 4 No. 4 (2016) Issue- December ISSN 2347-6869 (E) & ISSN 2347-2146 (P) Aristotle's concept of the state by Olivera Z. Mijuskovic Page no. 13-20 Page No.14 Aristotle's concept of the state 1.1. Aristotle`s “Politics” Politics in its defined form becomes affirmed by the ancient Greek world.
    [Show full text]
  • Life with Augustine
    Life with Augustine ...a course in his spirit and guidance for daily living By Edmond A. Maher ii Life with Augustine © 2002 Augustinian Press Australia Sydney, Australia. Acknowledgements: The author wishes to acknowledge and thank the following people: ► the Augustinian Province of Our Mother of Good Counsel, Australia, for support- ing this project, with special mention of Pat Fahey osa, Kevin Burman osa, Pat Codd osa and Peter Jones osa ► Laurence Mooney osa for assistance in editing ► Michael Morahan osa for formatting this 2nd Edition ► John Coles, Peter Gagan, Dr. Frank McGrath fms (Brisbane CEO), Benet Fonck ofm, Peter Keogh sfo for sharing their vast experience in adult education ► John Rotelle osa, for granting us permission to use his English translation of Tarcisius van Bavel’s work Augustine (full bibliography within) and for his scholarly advice Megan Atkins for her formatting suggestions in the 1st Edition, that have carried over into this the 2nd ► those generous people who have completed the 1st Edition and suggested valuable improvements, especially Kath Neehouse and friends at Villanova College, Brisbane Foreword 1 Dear Participant Saint Augustine of Hippo is a figure in our history who has appealed to the curiosity and imagination of many generations. He is well known for being both sinner and saint, for being a bishop yet also a fellow pilgrim on the journey to God. One of the most popular and attractive persons across many centuries, his influence on the church has continued to our current day. He is also renowned for his influ- ence in philosophy and psychology and even (in an indirect way) art, music and architecture.
    [Show full text]
  • BY PLATO• ARISTOTLE • .AND AQUINAS I
    i / REF1,l!;CTit.>NS ON ECONOMIC PROBLEMS / BY PLATO• ARISTOTLE • .AND AQUINAS ii ~FLECTIONS ON ECONO:MIC PROBLEMS 1 BY PLA'I'O, ARISTOTLE, JJJD AQUINAS, By EUGENE LAIDIBEL ,,SWEARINGEN Bachelor of Science Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical Collage Stillwater, Oklahoma 1941 Submitted to the Depertmeut of Economics Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE 1948 iii f.. 'I. I ···· i·: ,\ H.: :. :· ··: ! • • ~ ' , ~ • • !·:.· : i_ ·, 1r 1i1. cr~~rJ3t L l: i{ ,\ I~ Y , '•T •)() 1 0 ,1 8 API-'HOV~D BY: .J ,.· 1.., J l.;"t .. ---- -··- - ·- ______.,.. I 7 -.. JI J ~ L / \ l v·~~ u ' ~) (;_,LA { 7 {- ' r ~ (\.7 __\ _. ...A'_ ..;f_ ../-_" ...._!)_.... ..." ___ ......._ ·;...;;; ··-----/ 1--.,i-----' ~-.._.._ :_..(__,,---- ....... Member of the Report Committee 1..j lj:,;7 (\ - . "'·- -· _ .,. ·--'--C. r, .~-}, .~- Q_ · -~ Q.- 1Head of the Department . · ~ Dean of the Graduate School 502 04 0 .~ -,. iv . r l Preface The purpose and plan of this report are set out in the Introduction. Here, I only wish to express my gratitude to Professor Russell H. Baugh who has helped me greatly in the preparation of this report by discussing the various subjects as they were in the process of being prepared. I am very much indebted to Dr. Harold D. Hantz for his commentaries on the report and for the inspiration which his classes in Philosophy have furnished me as I attempted to correlate some of the material found in these two fields, Ecor!.Omics and Philosophy. I should like also to acknowledge that I owe my first introduction into the relationships of Economics and Philosophy to Dean Raymond Thomas, and his com~ents on this report have been of great value.
    [Show full text]
  • Representation and Metaphysics Proper
    Richard B. Wells ©2006 CHAPTER 4 First Epilegomenon: Representation and Metaphysics Proper The pursuit of wisdom has had a two-fold origin. Diogenes Laertius § 1. Questions Raised by Representation The outline of representation presented in Chapter 3 leaves us with a number of questions we need to address. In this chapter we will take a look back at our ideas of representation and work toward the resolution of those issues that present themselves in consequence of the theory as it stands so far. I call this look back an epilegomenon, from epi – which means “over” or “upon” – and legein – “to speak.” I employ this new term because the English language seems to have no word that adequately expresses the task at hand. “Epilogue” would imply logical conclusion, while “summary” or “epitome” would suggest a simple re-hashing of what has already been said. Our present task is more than this; we must bring out the implications of representation, Critically examine the gaps in the representation model, and attempt to unite its aggregate pieces as a system. In doing so, our aim is to push farther toward “that which is clearer by nature” although we should not expect to arrive at this destination all in one lunge. Let this be my apology for this minor act of linguistic tampering.1 In particular, Chapter 3 saw the introduction of three classes of ideas that are addressed by the division of nous in its role as the agent of construction for representations. We described these ideas as ideas of the act of representing.
    [Show full text]