Absolutist- Space is euclidian everywhere (everywhere the same), so nothing will act any differently, no matter where you put it.
Positivist (logical positivism)- without observable evidence, what we talk about, i.e. bsolute space, is meaningless. (If we can’t verify terminology, it is meaningless, so the rationalist says that the absolutist is not positivist as they are [...]
Archive for January, 2009
Space, Time & Causality, S1
Posted in Space, Time & Causality, tagged clarke, Leibniz, Newton, Space on January 31, 2009 | Leave a Comment »
Space, Time & Causality, L4
Posted in Space, Time & Causality, tagged Kant, Leibniz, motion, Newton, relationism, Space on January 31, 2009 | Leave a Comment »
Newton thinks that his Bucket example shows that even though there is no relative motion, we can still see the effects of absolute motion.
no objection to this is that the apparant absolute motion is actually explainable in terms of motion relative to the ‘fixed stars’. If is this relative motion that may effect the effect [...]
Space, Time & Causality, L3
Posted in Space, Time & Causality, tagged Causality, Newton, relativity, Space, Time on January 31, 2009 | Leave a Comment »
Leibniz’s arguments against Newtonian Absolute Space (NAS) include;
Principle of suficient reason (PSR), which can be explained in several ways; an infinite past, infinite backover, certain sequence of events, looped time, or backover causation. But then, another question is begged. What is the sufficient reason for one of these?
Principle of the identity of indiscernibles (PII)- If [...]
Space, Time & Causality, L2
Posted in Space, Time & Causality on January 31, 2009 | Leave a Comment »
Relationism- Leibniz
Leibniz denies that space is object like. He says that Newtonian talk is misleading, and space is merely a matter of how material objects are related to oneanother. In other words, we cannot have ‘absolute motion’.
Positive Features of Relationism
Space only comes into existence with material objects (so there is no problem with space existing [...]
Space, Time & Causality, L1
Posted in Space, Time & Causality on January 31, 2009 | Leave a Comment »
The main question: Is Space an entity?
Two main lines of response;
Absolutism- Space is an entity in its own right (Newton, Clarke)
Relationism- Space is no more than the relations between objects (Leibniz). i.e. friendship is a relation between two people, yet it is not an entity in its own right.
So what is space?
Void- emptiness into which [...]
Dominion, T D J Chappell
Posted in Environmental Ethics, tagged Dominion, Humans, nature, Value on January 21, 2009 | Leave a Comment »
Abstract
Two claims should be discinguished;
1. Humans have the right to supervise, manage and direct the rest of nature
2. Humans have a special value, superior to the rest of nature
I discuss some ways of rejecting either or both claims, and point to some surprising consequences of such rejections.
1 does not entail 2; a right to a [...]
J S Mill: On Nature (1874)
Posted in Environmental Ethics, tagged Mill, nature on January 20, 2009 | Leave a Comment »
Naure, Natural. The words have thus become entangled mostly of a very powerful and tenacious character, which their original meaning will by no means justify, making them one of the most copious sources of false taste, false philosophy, false morality and even bad law.
The Platonic method is still the best type of investigation. The first [...]
