h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yeah . . . I'll continue my earlier quote: ". . . substance, being nothing bu the supposed, but unknown, support of those qualities we find existing, wnich we imagine cannot subsist *sine re substante*, without something to support them, we call that support *substantia*'; which, according to the true import of the word, is, in plain English, standing under or upholding."

Berkeley was (I suggest) justified in taking it that such a shadowy notional support could well be placed in the same category as the elephant on the back of a tortoise in Indian philosophy, as indeed Locke himself admitted.

R'man. I'm not going to quote Berkeley on spiritual substance right now. Suffice it to say that he believed in it and finally identified it with God. If you say you doubt this, I'll supply some quotes.

toxx

I'm not being rude, I just haven't got anything to say on this subject, except a little light goes up when someone mentions Locke or Spinoza and I say *I know that name!*

<>

The problem is that Berkeley makes it so *by definition*....

Noggin

I fear that he gets the idea from Locke who, in turn, gets it from Aristotle.

toxx

"I'm not going to quote Berkeley on spiritual substance right now. Suffice it to say that he believed in it and finally identified it with God. If you say you doubt this, I'll supply some quotes."

No problem here. Berkeley denied material substance, defined (as Noggin says) as inert or passive. He replaced it with active substance or mind. The interesting thing is how many problems this solved at a stroke -- too many, for his contemporaries. Transubstantiation went out the window, though I don't know whether he was too polite to mention this.

A similar stroke was pulled by Wittgenstein at the start of the Tractatus: "the world consists of facts, not things". At the time, the "external world" was problematic for philosophers.

The modern view would be that substance is active (has causal powers), and that this being so the distinction beteen mind and material substance can't be maintained on the basis of this particular distinction betwen active and passive (although it might be maintained for other reasons) and Schopenhauer's later use of the term "will" embraces all active substance.

Wittgenstein's use of the term facts seems to refer to the mind, though without prejudice as to the existence of an external world.

He also says that the facts are strung together in "logical space", introducing this crucial term into philosophical discourse from the world of mathematics.

Noggin

"The modern view would be" -- yes, I agree too! There's a name for that figure of speech but I can't recall it now

"Not things"! That seems very prejudicial to the existence of an external world. However, the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus is not the same as he who repudiated the earlier work in later years.

toxx

"There is a bookcase in my living room" is a fact, not a thing, but is in no way inimical to the idea of an external world.

Noggin

Let's not introduce unnecessary problems . . . no, only joking!

"the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus is not the same as he who repudiated the earlier work in later years."

Very Dodgy Statement.

There is a wonderful site giving the causes of philosophers' deaths. For Wittgenstein it is "Became the late Wittgenstein".

http://www.dar.cam.ac.uk/~dhm11/DeathIndex.html

<"There is a bookcase in my living room" is a fact, not a thing, but is in no way inimical to the idea of an external world.>

Sure, but:

<"the world consists of facts, not things".>

*is* inimical to it. It is the latter 'metafactoid?' that you quoted which I seized on as a premise, not the existence of any particular fact you care to cite.

toxx

Philosophical arguments are commonly "won" by the party that can bore all the others into submission. Eventually they will get up and leave, saying "Who cares?"

Quote of the day

Philosphy is only found in those who think freely enough to ask the questions "what if?" and "why?"

I am not as well versed in philisophical history as I should be , but all these links are very enlightening. Have you any more (like the Berkely and Locke articles) on Wittgenstein? Oh, and R-man, the "causes of death" link is hysterical. Unfortunately, I've more work to do now. Aargh.

Terps

I mentioned my entry A1024156 on Wittgenstein back in 1012 . . . but a google will turn up lots and lots.

The first thing google turns up is http://www.iep.utm.edu/w/wittgens.htm#H10 which is pretty good.

Here's my piece on George Berkeley: A3390554

Concice, coherent, accurate. I like it. And thank you for the Wittgenstein link, I read it while salivating over the Apple's latest (the PowerBook with more of everything than anyone could ever need and a 17 inch widescreen). I agree with many of the ideas Wittgenstein proposes, but I need to actually read him.
Must run. Once again, excellent writing, R-man.