Skip to main content

Principle of Plenitude




I recently encountered a critique of Arthur Lovejoy's well-known book on the "great chain of being."


I've discussed that book in this blog, focusing on what it says about theodicy, that is, efforts to justify the ways of God to man.


But the critic I encountered recently, Jaakko Hintikka, the fellow portrayed here, focuses on the "principle of plenitude."


So let's look at that for a moment, gentle reader. The P of P is one of the "unit ideas" in Lovejoy's account of the great chain. It is one of the atoms that came together to form that molecule.


In Lovejoy's formulation, the P of P is the idea that every kind of creature that is possible is also actual. In one form, this means that in the fullness of time, anything that is not the case now either once was the case or at some time will be the case, as when Descartes wrote that due to the laws of nature "matter takes on, successively, all the forms of which it is capable."


In another form, the principle has a more static significance -- the universe has always included all possibilities within some range. Maintaining this requires a certain level of abstraction in one's formulation, and the level it requires is a matter of some debate. But we can see how the notion of the P of P contributes to that of the Great Chain. There must be matter without life, life without motion, moving life (animals) without intellect, and intellectual animals as well, all because each is possible. Likewise with creatures we cannot observe. There must be intelligences without bodies (angels) because it is possible that there are.


Hintikka contends that Lovejoy's understanding of the P of P is defective "not just in its details but also in some of its main outlines."


He claims, for example, that Lovejoy erroneously believes Plato ascribed to the P of P and that Aristotle did not. On Hintikka's own view, Aristotle not only subscribed to the P of P, he argued for it and used it as a lemma in his philosophy. Whether Plato believed in the P of P, on the other hand, is not at all clear, at any rate he never "embraced" it in an unqualified way as his student did. Given the significance of those two men, this error is more than a detail, even if it is less than a "main outline," of Lovejoy's account.


What is more important, Hintikka contends that Lovejoy is too wedded to a static conception of the P of P. He thinks the more dynamic, evolutionary conception came along quite late in his story. But tis is perhaps because of Lovejoy's premise that the P of P is a true "unit idea." Once we can see that this atom splits, we can see that the dynamic reading was there from very early on.


This will suffice for today's cogitations.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

https://sites.google.com/site/francescoorsi1/

https://jhaponline.org/jhap/article/view/3

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …