critical-realism
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: BHA: Identity and change
- Subject: Re: BHA: Identity and change
- From: Louis Irwin <lirwin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 10:30:54 -0400
Hi Colin!
I am astonished by the disconnect between us, but your note may serve to
let me clarify.
You quote my definition of a relational property, namely "a property a
thing has by virtue of being in relation to something else. If R is a
relation and Rab, then a has the relational property Rxb, and b has the
relational property Rax."
Then you complain I have defined an internal relation and that external
relations do not have that form. I do not follow you on this at all. Let a
and b be the Cambridge and Arizona rocks respectively, and let R be the
relation expressed by "x is East of y." Then a has the relational property
expressed by "x is East of b", and b has the relational property expressed
by "a is East of y". So my definition is satisfied, yet the relation
involved is an external one. Therefore my definition cannot be restricted
to internal relations, as you claim.
You go on to say say that "the relationship between a rock in Cambridge and
the environment in Arizona seems to me to be pretty much an external one."
I could not agree more.
Then you ask (rhetorically) "Convince me that a move of the rock in
Cambridge changes the environment in Arizona," as if I had said that a move
of the Cambridge rock might cause a change in the weather in Arizona. If
you are using "change" in a sense that excludes changes in non-essential
relational properties, then a move of the Cambridge rock does not "change"
the
environment of Arizona. If, on the other hand, you use "change" to include
non-essential relational properties, then the environment of Arizona does
indeed undergo a "change" (albeit an external one). My last post should
have made that very clear. Clearly you are vehemently opposed to such a
usage of "change", but you can't somehow prove that usage to be incoherent
by examples that make essential use of your preferred usage. You might as
well complain about the scientific definition of water as H2O by pointing
out that the water we are drinking contains all manner of other stuff.
Louis Irwin
--- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
- Thread context:
- BHA: Identity and change,
Louis Irwin Wed 13 May 1998, 20:12 GMT
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: BHA: Identity and change,
Colin Wight Thu 14 May 1998, 07:47 GMT
- Re: BHA: Identity and change,
Jan Straathof Thu 14 May 1998, 22:12 GMT
- Re: BHA: Identity and change,
Colin Wight Fri 15 May 1998, 08:42 GMT
- Re: BHA: Identity and change,
Louis Irwin Fri 15 May 1998, 14:30 GMT
- Re: BHA: Identity and change,
Colin Wight Mon 18 May 1998, 07:38 GMT
- BHA: DPF & DCR,
HDespain Wed 13 May 1998, 18:00 GMT
- BHA: Re: Pi and H2O,
Tobin Nellhaus Tue 12 May 1998, 19:28 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]