DOCSLIB.ORG

Parts and Wholes in Aristotle's Conception of Substance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Parts and Wholes in Aristotle's Conception of Substance University of Latvia Faculty of History and Philosophy Līva Muižniece PARTS AND WHOLES IN ARISTOTLE'S CONCEPTION OF SUBSTANCE DOCTORAL THESIS Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Subfield: Theories of Mind and Cognition Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Phil. Jurģis Šķilters Rīga, 2012 This work has been supported by the European Social Fund within the project "Support for Doctoral Studies at the University of Latvia". Šis darbs izstrādāts ar Eiropas Sociāla fonda atbalstu projekta "Atbalsts doktora studijām Latvijas Universitātē". Abstract The dissertation "Parts and Wholes in Aristotle's Conception of Substance" shows that the distinction of several senses of 'part' and 'whole' solves the problem of unity of substance ( οὐσία ). Although both the problem and the solution are Aristotle's, he himself has not provided a separate exposition devoted specifically to this topic. The dissertation offers a dissection of the problem of unity of substance with instruments shaped by Aristotle's remarks on parts and wholes, i.e. mereology (from µέρος , 'part'). The investigation pertains to the composite (sensible or material) substance. The author has defended various claims that are controversial in Aristotelian scholarship (the plurality of the senses of the part–whole relation; the idea that form and matter are proper and real parts; the complexity of form), which have been unfolded by providing evidence in Aristotle's corpus and by discussing the views of various commentators. Keywords: Aristotle, part, whole, substance Anotācija Disertācijā "Daļas un veselumi Aristoteļa substances koncepcijā" autore parāda, ka vairāku 'daļas' un 'veseluma' nozīmju nošķīrums atrisina substances ( οὐσία ) vienības problēmu. Lai gan problēma un arī risinājums ir Aristoteļa, viņš šim jautājumam nevelta atsevišķu izklāstu. Disertācija piedāvā detalizētu substances vienības problēmas analīzi, izmantojot instrumentus, kas darināti, ņemot vērā Aristoteļa piezīmes par daļām un veselumiem, t. i., mereoloģiju (no µέρος – 'daļa'). Izpētes centrā ir salikta (sajūtama vai vieliska) substance. Autore aizstāv vairākus Aristoteļa pētniecībā strīdīgus apgalvojumus (uzskatu, ka daļas–veseluma attiecībai ( part–whole relation ) ir vairākas nozīmes, priekšstatu par veidolu un vielu kā par īstenām ( proper ) un reālām ( real ) daļām, veidola saliktību), kuri tiek pamatoti, aplūkojot Aristoteļa darbu korpusa fragmentus un iztirzājot dažādu komentētāju viedokļus. Atslēgas vārdi: Aristotelis, daļa, veselums, substance Acknowledgements It would have been impossible to write the dissertation without the support from the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Fulbright Foreign Student Program sponsored by United States Department of State. Contents List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................................... 9 0. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 11 0.1. The Subject-matter of the Dissertation ............................................................................................... 11 0.1.1. The Main Research Question ........................................................................................................ 11 0.1.2. The Aim and the Tasks ................................................................................................................. 13 0.1.3. The Main Propositions to be Defended in the Dissertation .......................................................... 14 0.1.3.1. There Are Various Types of Entity Which Are Said to Be Parts or Wholes ...................... 14 0.1.3.2. There Are Various Distinct Senses of the Part–Whole Relation ........................................ 16 0.1.3.3. The Distinct Senses of the Part–Whole Relation Solve the Problem of Unity ................... 18 0.2. The Methodological Framework ........................................................................................................ 20 0.2.1. Mereology and Metaphysics ......................................................................................................... 20 0.2.2. Research Methods ......................................................................................................................... 22 0.3. The Review of the Sources and Literature Explored in the Dissertation ........................................... 24 0.3.1. Primary Sources: Ancient Authors' Texts and Translations ......................................................... 24 0.3.2. Secondary literature ...................................................................................................................... 26 1. Approaches to Mereology ........................................................................................................................ 28 1.1. Extensional Mereology and its Limits ................................................................................................ 28 1.1.1. Calculus of Individuals ................................................................................................................. 28 1.1.2. The Counter-intuitiveness of Extensional Mereology .................................................................. 31 1.2. Non-extensional Mereology ............................................................................................................... 33 1.2.1. The Attribute of the Whole and the Relativity of Decomposition ................................................ 34 1.2.2. Dependence and Different Types of Part and Whole ................................................................... 35 1.2.3. Structure and Restrictions on Composition .................................................................................. 37 1.3. The Relevance of the Extensional and the Non-extensional Approach to Aristotle .......................... 40 2. Foundations of Aristotle's Mereology ...................................................................................................... 43 2.1. General Considerations ...................................................................................................................... 45 2.1.1. Ambiguity of Part, Whole, and One ............................................................................................. 45 2.1.2. Interrelatedness of Part, Whole, and One ..................................................................................... 49 2.1.3. Relativity of Unity and Divisibility .............................................................................................. 51 2.2. Ways of Division: Parts ...................................................................................................................... 53 2.2.1. Division of a Quantity into Quantities .......................................................................................... 56 2.2.2. Division of Form or Genus into Forms ......................................................................................... 58 2.2.3. Division of a Compound into Form and Matter ........................................................................... 61 2.2.4. Division of Form into Genus and Differentia ............................................................................... 65 2.2.5. Issues pertaining to the Distinction between the Part–Whole Relations ...................................... 67 2.2.5.1. Elaboration on the Distinction between Subjective and Integral parts ............................... 68 2.2.5.2. Elaboration on the Distinction between Real and Conceptual Parts ................................... 71 2.2.5.3. The Interconnectedness between 'Subjective Part–Universal Whole' and 'Conceptual Part– Conceptual Whole' Relations ........................................................................................................... 72 2.2.5.4. Genus as Matter .................................................................................................................. 73 2.3. Ways of Being One ............................................................................................................................ 75 2.3.1. Whole as One (Integral vs. Universal Whole) .............................................................................. 75 2.3.1.1. Quantitative Integral Whole ................................................................................................ 76 2.3.1.2. Universal Whole: Genus ..................................................................................................... 79 2.3.2. Whole as a Perfection that Can Be Mutilated (Continued Elaborations on Integral Wholes) ..... 82 2.3.3. In Search of a Correct Definition of a 'Genuine Whole' (Continued Elaborations on Integral Wholes) ................................................................................................................................................... 84 2.3.3.1. A Whole Is Not an Arbitrary Sum ...................................................................................... 85 2.3.3.2. The Existence of Parts Does Not Guarantee the Existence of the Whole ........................... 85 2.3.3.3. A Composite Cannot Have Incompatible Components ...................................................... 86 2.3.3.4. Accidents Do Not Make Up a Whole ................................................................................. 86 2.3.3.5. The Whole Cannot Be in One Thing and the Parts in Another ..........................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Richard Swinburne's Arguments for Substance Dualism
    Richard Swinburne’s arguments for substance dualism. MA by Research in Theology and Religion David Horner September 2018 Richard Swinburne’s arguments for substance dualism. Submitted by David Horner to the University of Exeter as a dissertation for the degree of MA by Research in Theology and Religion in September 2018 This dissertation is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the dissertation may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this dissertation which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. 1 Acknowledgements. I would like to thank my supervisors, Dr Jonathan Hill and Dr Joel Krueger for their support and encouragement in the writing of this dissertation and for their patience in trying to keep me on the straight and narrow. I want to acknowledge the many conversations, on this and other topics, I have had with my friend and philosopher, Dr Chris Boyne, who sadly died in June of this year. I thank all my other chums at The Bull, Ditchling, for listening to my metaphysical ramblings. And finally, I thank my wife, Linda, for once more putting up with this kind of thing. 2 Abstract This dissertation is a contribution to debates in the philosophy of mind and of personal identity. It presents a critical account of arguments for substance dualism to be found in Richard Swinburne’s Mind, Brain, and Free Will (2013).
    [Show full text]
  • The Generative Dimension, in the Light of Aristotle's Substance
    90 THE GENERATIVE DIMENSION, IN THE LIGHT OF ARISTOTLE’S SUBSTANCE (HYPOKEIMENON) THEORY Xiaoyu XU1 and Xinlei LIU1 ABSTRACT: The paper is dedicated to the analysis of Aristotle’s substance theory within the overall Organicist perception of the universe as a living organism. The suggested analytical pathway begins with the generative substance (in Stagirite’s original term – generative hypokeimenon) and leads to the primary causes, prompted by the constant movement of the “thing”. We argue that Aristotle’s analysis of “matter and form” (in his original texts: “ὕλη – hyle” and “μορφή – morphe”)2 leads to the generative function, reaffirming its dynamism and process expression. KEYWORDS: Aristotle, hypokeimenon, hyle, morphe, potential, reality, dynamism, universe, organism, process, generative function Contents Introduction 1. From the studying of Aristotle’s theory of substance (hypokeimenon) – to realizing the generative dimension 2. From Aristotle’s analysis of “hyle” and “morphe” – to examining the generative potentials that are their natural essences Conclusion 1 Northeast Petroleum University, Daqing, CHINA. 2 Following the approach of the BCnA-journal, we consider it essential to apply the genuine terms and notions, used by the Stagirite in his original works, in expressing the authentic (and our own – neo-Aristotelian) conceptual constructions. Thus, we use (adding Italics); hyle – instead of “matter”; morphe – instead of “form”; hypokeimenon – instead of “substance”, etc. Vol. 8, No. 1, BIOCOSMOLOGY – NEO-ARISTOTELISM Winter 2018 91 ГЕНЕРАТИВНОЕ ИЗМЕРЕНИЕ, В СВЕТЕ АРИСТОТЕЛЕВСКОЙ ТЕОРИИ СУБСТАНЦИИ (ГИПОКЕЙМЕНОНА) Чиаю ЗЮЕ и Шинлей ЛЬЮ АБСТРАКТ: Статья посвящена анализу теории субстанции (гипокейменона) Аристотеля в общем восприятии органической вселенной как живого организма. Предлагаемый аналитический путь начинается с порождающего вещества (в первоначальном выражении Стагирита – порождающего гипокейменона) и приводит к основным причинам, побуждающим постоянное движением «вещи».
    [Show full text]
  • Leibniz's Ontology of Individual Substance
    THE SCIENCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL: LEIBNIZ’S ONTOLOGY OF INDIVIDUAL SUBSTANCE TOPOI LIBRARY VOLUME 6 Managing Editor: Ermanno Bencivenga, University of California, Irvine, U.S.A. Editorial Board: Daniel Berthold-Bond, Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, U.S.A. William James Earle, Baruch College, City University of New York,NewYork, U.S.A. Ann Ferguson, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, U.S.A. David Lloyd, Scripps College, Claremont, U.S.A. Topoi Library is sponsoredbythe Department of Philosophy and theSchool of Humanities at the University of California, Irvine Scope: Likethe journal TOPOII, the TOPOI Library is based on the assumption that philosophy isa lively, provocative, delightful activity, which constantly challenges our inherited habits, painstakingly elaborates on how things could be different, in other stories, in counterfactual situations, inalternative possibleworlds. Whatever its ideology,whether with the intent of uncovering a truer structure of reality or of shooting our anxiety, of exposing myths or of following them through, the outcome of philosophical activity is always the destabilizing, unsettlinggeneration ofdoubts, of objections, of criticisms. It follows that this activity is intrinsically a dialogue, that philosophy is first andforemost philosophicaldiscussion, that it requires bringing out conflicting points of view, paying careful, sympathetic attention to their structure, and using this dialectic to articulate one’s approach,tomake itricher, more thoughtful, more open to variation and play.Andit follows that thespiritwhich one bringstothis activity must be one of tolerance, of always suspecting one’s own blindness and consequently looking with unbiased eye in every corner, without fearing to pass a (fallible)judgment on what isthere but also without failing to show interest and respect.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Leibniz.Cwk
    Overview of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) Paul R. Shockley Dissatisfied with Descartes and Spinoza’s descriptions of substance, believing they had distorted one’s understanding of human nature, freedom, and God, Leibniz synthesis both a teleological (traditional) and mechanical views into a rationalistic worldview that is striking but uncompelling. “...compound substance is the collection of monads. Monas is a Greek word which signifies unity, or that which is one; simple substances, lives, souls, spirits are unities. Consequently all of nature is full of life. ” His aim is demonstrate that God & teleology are not all passe’ in a mechanistic universe: (1) He denies the fundamental relation of extension (substance is primary matter (vs. Descartes; Spinoza); (2) There are no causal relations between created substances; (3) in order to explain universe he appeals to preestablished harmony. I. SUBSTANCE: II. GOD: III. KNOWLEDGE & NATURE Leibniz accepted Spinoza’s single-substance theory & mechanical model of A. Existence: A. Theory of Knowledge: universe but turned Spinozism upside in such a way to speak of individuality of The preestablished harmony of universe provides proof of God’s (1) A person is similar to a subject in grammatical sense : For any true sense or persons, transcendence of God, & reality of purpose & freedom in universe. existence with "surprising clearness ” : “this perfect harmony of so proposition, the predicate is already contained in the subject. Principle of Sufficient Reason. Thus, to know the subject is already to know certain predicates: “ All men are many substances which have no communication with each other”: mortal” is a true proposition because the predicate “mortal” is already contained the A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Leibnizian Vision in Frank Ankersmit's Philosophy of History
    INTENSION, SUBSTANCE AND CALCULUS – THE LEIBNIZIAN VISION IN FRANK ANKERSMIT’S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY Oulu University Faculty of History Master’s thesis 20.5.2019 Aleksi Oja 1 Due to the abundance of referral to the extensive work of Frank Ankersmit and my general reliance on his published books and selected papers as sources, I ask the reader to use the following list of abbreviations of some of the most featured works: NL – Ankersmit, F. R. 1983: Narrative Logic – a Semantic Analysis of the Historian’s Language. Martinus Nijhoff publishers, The Hague, Netherlands. HT – Ankersmit, F. R. 1994. History and Tropology: The Rise and Fall of Metaphor. University of California Press. London, England. HR – Ankersmit, F. R. 2001: Historical Representation. Stanford University Press, California, USA. PR – Ankersmit, F. R. 2002: Political Representation. Stanford University Press, California, USA. SHE – Ankersmit, F. R. 2005: Sublime Historical Experience. Stanford University Press, California, USA. MTR – Ankersmit F. R. 2012: Meaning, Truth and Reference in Historical Representation. Stanford University Press, California, USA. HSI – Ankersmit, F. R. 2013: History as the Science of the Individual. Journal of the Philosophy of History Vol. 7 (3), 396 – 425. WEM – Ankersmit, F. R. 2017: Where the extremes meet. A presently still an unpublished paper, given as the handout for Frank Ankersmit’s opening speech at the Seminar of philosophy of history in October 2017 in Oulu university. 2 Table of Contents Introduction ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Two Contemporary Approaches to the Individuation of Concrete Particulars: Why a Substance Theory Is a Stronger Account Nicholas Paul Spitzer University of Missouri-St
    University of Missouri, St. Louis IRL @ UMSL Theses Graduate Works 7-14-2006 Two Contemporary Approaches To The Individuation Of Concrete Particulars: Why A Substance Theory Is A Stronger Account Nicholas Paul Spitzer University of Missouri-St. Louis Follow this and additional works at: https://irl.umsl.edu/thesis Recommended Citation Spitzer, Nicholas Paul, "Two Contemporary Approaches To The ndI ividuation Of Concrete Particulars: Why A Substance Theory Is A Stronger Account" (2006). Theses. 264. https://irl.umsl.edu/thesis/264 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Works at IRL @ UMSL. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of IRL @ UMSL. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TWO CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES TO THE INDIVIDUATION OF CONCRETE PARTICULARS: WHY A SUBSTANCE THEORY IS A STRONGER ACCOUNT by NICHOLAS PAUL SPITZER B.A., Behavioral Studies, Lael College and Graduate School, St. Louis, MO, 1999 A THESIS Submitted to the Graduate School of the UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI – ST. LOUIS In partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS in PHILOSOPHY August 2006 Advisory Committee Jon D. McGinnis, Ph.D. Committee Chair Berit Brogaard, Ph.D. Andrew Black, Ph.D. © Copyright 2006 by Nicholas P. Spitzer All Rights Reserved Spitzer, Nicholas (2006), UMSL, page 2 Introduction As we interact with and observe our environment, we confront a world filled with many different entities.1 Some of these entities are things like houses, cars, commercial airplanes, oak trees, spiders, dogs, cats and people. Our initial intuitions seem to be that the world comes carved up with things like these concrete particulars.
    [Show full text]
  • Indices Systema Tic Index
    PART THREE INDICES SYSTEMA TIC INDEX Selected headings from the Analytical Index, conveniently grouped. The most comprehensive headings are italicized. BASIC & COMPREHENSIVE ENTRIES bibliography, reference, research tools image of Descartes in scholarship & popular biography of Descartes mind Cartesian era influence of Descartes Descartes' role in science interpretations Descartes' role in Western philosophy personality & character of Descartes development of Descartes' work & thought philosophy of Descartes (general, chief ( chronology) orientation) general literature not cited in Part I (books, protophilosophy (axioms, presuppositions) chapters, articles, lectures) of Descartes seventeenth century GEOGRAPHIC INDEX Albania Bacon Argentina Cambridge Platonists Belgium Crashaw Cartesianism Cudworth Jansen Derham Louvain Digby Brazil Glanvill Bulgaria Harvey China: s. v. Chinese & Cartesian Hobbes Czechslovakia Huxley, T. H. Bohemia Locke Komensky Mill, J. S. Prague Newton White Mountain, battle Norris Denmark Priestley Brahe, Tycho Reid Kierkegaard Shakespeare England Whitehead Cartesianism France literature Cartesianism 421 literature Goethe French language Giinther, Anton Anjou Hegel Arnauld, Ie Grand Heidegger Baillet Husser! Bayle Jaspers Berulle Kant Bretagne Leibniz Caen Marburg School Chanet Marx Chanut Schelling Charron Schopenhauer Chatellerault Greece Clerselier Aristotle Comte Carneades Corneille Damodos Cournot Democritus Cousin Epictetus Daniel, Gabriel Epicureanism Diderot Euclid Fenelon Plato Fermat Plotinus Fontenelle Protagoras
    [Show full text]
  • Matherne, Cassirers Psychology of Relations, Jhap (Forthcoming)
    Cassirer’s Psychology of Relations: From the Psychology of Mathematics and Natural Science to the Psychology of Culture Samantha Matherne (UC Santa Cruz) JHAP Special Issue: Method, Science, and Mathematics: Neo-Kantianism and Early Analytic Philosophy, eds. Lydia Patton and Scott Edgar (forthcoming) Abstract: In spite of Ernst Cassirer’s criticisms of psychologism throughout Substance and Function, in the final chapter, he issues a demand for a ‘psychology of relations’ that can do justice to the subjective dimensions of mathematics and natural science. Although these remarks remain somewhat promissory, the fact that this is how Cassirer chooses to conclude Substance and Function recommends it as a topic worthy of serious consideration. In this paper, I argue that in order to work out the details of Cassirer’s psychology of relations in Substance and Function, we need to situate it within two broader frameworks. First, I position Cassirer’s view in relation to the view of psychology and logic endorsed by his Marburg Neo-Kantian predecessors, Hermann Cohen and Paul Natorp. Second, I augment Cassirer’s early account of the psychology of relations in Substance and Function with the more mature view of psychology that he presents in The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. By placing Cassirer’s account within these contexts, I claim that we gain insight into his psychology of relations, not just as it pertains to mathematics and natural science, but to culture as a whole. Moreover, I maintain that pursuing this strategy helps shed light on one of the most controversial features of his philosophy of mathematics and natural science, viz., his theory of the a priori.
    [Show full text]
  • Humans and Nature: Finding Meaning Through Metaphysics Justin Stone [email protected]
    Rollins College Rollins Scholarship Online Master of Liberal Studies Theses 2013 Humans and Nature: Finding Meaning through Metaphysics Justin Stone [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.rollins.edu/mls Part of the Metaphysics Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Stone, Justin, "Humans and Nature: Finding Meaning through Metaphysics" (2013). Master of Liberal Studies Theses. 42. http://scholarship.rollins.edu/mls/42 This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by Rollins Scholarship Online. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master of Liberal Studies Theses by an authorized administrator of Rollins Scholarship Online. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Humans and Nature: Finding Meaning Through Metaphysics A Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Liberal Studies by Justin S. Stone May, 2013 Mentor: Dr. Hoyt Edge Reader: Dr. Robert Vander Poppen Rollins College Hamilton Holt School Master of Liberal Studies Program Winter Park, Florida Table of Contents Introduction 1 Chapter 1 – Ancient Thought: Plato and Aristotle 7 Chapter 2 – Medieval Philosophy: From Augustine to Aquinas 22 Chapter 3 – The Scientific Revolution: Descartes and Bacon 34 Redefine Nature Chapter 4 – Spinoza: God in the Machine 48 Chapter 5 – Heidegger: Return of Metaphysics 56 Conclusion 67 Index of References 72 1 Introduction Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That man is the product of causes which had no provision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collisions of atoms… - Russell Bertrand Before the 19th Century, individuals who studied the natural world were called natural philosophers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Self: a Humean Bundle And/Or a Cartesian Substance?
    EUJAP VOL. 5 No. 1 2009 ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER UDK: 1 Descartes, R. 1 Hume, D 111 165.18 THE SELF: A HUMEAN BUNDLE AND/OR A CARTESIAN SUBSTANCE? JIRI BENOVSKY University of Fribourg (Switzerland) AbSTRACT “It is certain that a thought cannot exist without a thing that is thinking, and in Is the self a substance, as Descartes thought, or is it ‘only’ a bundle of perceptions, as Hume thought? general no act or accident can exist with- In this paper I will examine these two views, es- out a substance for it to belong to.” pecially with respect to two central features that have played a central role in the discussion, both Descartes 1965, 175-6 of which can be quickly and usefully explained if one puts them as an objection to the bundle view. “For my part, when I enter most intimate- First, friends of the substance view have insisted ly into what I call myself, I always stumble that only if one conceives of the self as a substance is it possible to account for genuine particularity on some particular perception or other, of of selves and genuine persistence through time heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, of them. I will discuss in detail this claim as well pain or pleasure. I can never catch myself as a special case of persistence - the case of a fis- sion of a self - and I will ask, as Shoemaker (1997) at any time without a perception, and can did, how such a case can be handled by the two never observe anything but the perception.
    [Show full text]
  • 141 the Problematic Search for the Nature
    Ifiok: Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies Vol. 3,No.1. 2017 ISSN 2408-6800 http://ifiokjournal.com THE PROBLEMATIC SEARCH FOR THE NATURE OF INTELLIGENCE: PHILOSOPHICAL REACTIONS AND PROJECTIONS Fatai Asodun Department Of Philosophy, Akwa Ibom State University, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT The question, “What is intelligence?” is deceptively simple. However, scholars have engaged in series of research in order to answer it. Till date there is no simple answer accepted by experts in the relevant disciplines. Attempt to identify a standard definition has been very challenging. This failure is connected with the fact that defining intelligence requires the application of problematic and abstract concepts. Consequently, some researchers decided to put forward theories as an attempt to capture the nature of intelligence. However, this option, as reflected in this paper, further deepens the problem it purports to resolve. The paper is an inquest into the intellectual travails of scholars who fruitlessly attempted to grasp the nature of intelligence. The paper avers that these travails are caused by scholar’s reliance on ontological proof of intelligence which stipulates the possession of brain and mind as evidence of intelligence. The epistemological proof which relies on overt behaviour as index of interpreting intelligence is projected by the paper as a plausible means of overcoming the nebulous nature of the concept. Keywords: Intelligence, Panacea, Green, Environment. INTRODUCTION An ontological proof of intelligence focuses on the phenomenon responsible for what is perceived as intelligence. Such phenomena are generally conceived as brain and mind. Consequently, advocates of this channel of understanding intelligence simply offer definitions or theories of the term that are anchored on brain or mind possession.
    [Show full text]
  • Process Environmental Philosophy
    PROCESS ENVIRONMENTAL PHILOSOPHY Marc J.V. Corbeil, B.A., M.T.M. Thesis Prepared for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS May 2003 APPROVED: Pete A.Y. Gunter, Major Professor J. Baird Callicott, Committee Member Eugene Hargrove, Committee Member, and Graduate Advisor and Chair of Philosophy C. Neal Tate, Dean of the Robert B. Toulouse School of Graduate Studies Corbeil, Marc J.V., Process Environmental Philosophy, Master of Arts (Philosophy), May 2003, 89 pp., 78 titles A process-information approach is examined as a foundation for an environmental philosophy that is dynamic and elastic, with particular emphasis on value, beauty, integrity and stability supporting Aldo Leopold’s vision. I challenge one of the basic assumptions of Western philosophy, namely the metaphysical primacy of substance. The classical, medieval and modern metaphysics of substance is presented with particular attention given the paradoxes of substance. Starting from the philosophy of Heraclitus, relatively ignored by the Western tradition of philosophy, a process philosophy is developed as an alternative to standard metaphysical attitudes in philosophy. A possible resolution of Zeno’s paradoxes leads to consideration of other paradoxes of substance metaphysics. It is argued that substance metaphysics is incompatible with evidence found in the shifting paradigms of ecology and general science. Process philosophy is explored as a basis for an environmental philosophy, attempting to put the environment back into philosophy. Copyright 2003 by Marc J.V. Corbeil ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………..………..1 2. HISTORY OF SUBSTANCE METAPHYSICS……………..……….....3 Ancient Period Medieval Period Modern and Contemporary Period Quine’s Last Stand: Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness 3.
    [Show full text]