Page 1 of 1
Alice in Blunderland
Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 7:44 pm
by Philosophy Now
Peter Rickman travels through the looking glass in search of some of philosophy’s pitfalls.
http://philosophynow.org/issues/37/Alice_in_Blunderland
Re: Alice in Blunderland
Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 7:49 pm
by marjoramblues
.
Re: Alice in Blunderland
Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 8:30 pm
by duszek
Alice can try a cup of chili-tea for her headache. One piece of chili with hot water. And if it´s not hot enough she can chew the piece of chili, but carefully.
In the meantime the friendly gentleman can explain to someone else, the Cheshire Cat or some other eager listener, that universals can be predicated of particulars.
Alice is beautiful.
"Beauty" is a universal, "Alice" is a particular.
We predicate a universal of a particular.
Grammar is not essential.
Whether we say "Socrates has wisdom" or "Socrates is wise" does not make any difference.
Likewise:
The Cheshire Cat has a smile.
Or: The Cheshire Cat is smiling.
Smiling being not a property but an accident, but still a universal, I would say, attachable to a particular, cat or man.
Re: Alice in Blunderland
Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 2:16 pm
by duszek
Properties and accidents do not exist like substances exist.
They exist only as attached to a substance.
Alice has beauty.
"Alice" is a substance. "Beauty" is a property. It can only exist when attached to a substance, woman or animal or plant.
This cat has a smile.
A smile cannot exist on its own.
A whisker can exist on its own, it is a detachable part of the substance "cat".
But not a smile.
Thank you for your attention. If you have any questions please go ahead.