Skip to main content

Semantic Argument over the word "Emergence"

Image result for ziggurat images

In contemporary metaphysical discussions the word "emergence" and its variants play a big part.

It often appears in the context of the mind-body problem. The mind (or intentionality, or consciousness, or whatever you may call the intangible subjective aspect of our reality) is said to have "emerged" at a certain moment in evolution, and to recapitulate this by "emerging" again at a certain moment in embryology.

I think there is an element of word magic involved. We lessen the mystery of something by having a good word for it.

IIRC, Samuel Alexander built an impressive metaphysical structure around this word magic. Matter, he said, emerged from space, then life from matter, then mind from life, like a growing ziggurat.

I bring this up because I came across an intriguing discussion of the ambiguity of the word in my recent web surfing. Here is a link.

It turns out that was written a year ago but, hey, that's an eyeblink for the chronology of the development of philosophy.

The blogger in question uses the example of the relationship between a battalion and its soldiers as a paradigm for confusions over "emergence." The whole point of military discipline, after all, is that a battalion will act as one entity, not as many. And surely a historian may well need to talk of the battalion as a whole. So, is a battalion an emergent? If so, what has emerged and does this have anything to do with Alexander's Big Picture?

The blogger at Powers, Capacities, and Dispositions writes that there are various equivocations about the battalion and the soldiers that he doesn't want to hear!

-------------------------

Not: “Well, battalions exist alright, but what they are is a plurality of soldiers.”  Not: “Battalions aren’t anything in addition to a plurality of soldiers since what a battalion is is a plurality of soldiers duly arranged.”  And for sure not: “Battalions are the same thing as a plurality of soldiers, but I can’t talk about the behavior of a battalion unless I help myself to the macro-level terminology, so I will, and it follows from this that I am not a reductionist.”

--------------------------

This blogger's point is that although he is happy with the notion that the battalion is a distinct thing, the word "emergence" should be reserved for something more than just such distinctiveness. It is more than the negation of methodological reductionism. What is the "more"? Ah, that is the issue, and one of metaphysics not of semantics. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Great Chain of Being

One of the points that Lovejoy makes in the book of that title I mentioned last week is the importance, in the Neo-Platonist conceptions and in the later development of the "chain of being" metaphor, of what he calls the principle of plenitude. This is the underlying notion that everything that can exist must exist, that creation would not be possible at all were it to leave gaps.

The value of this idea for a certain type of theodicy is clear enough.

This caused theological difficulties when these ideas were absorbed into Christianity.  I'll quote a bit of what Lovejoy has to say about those difficulties:

"For that conception, when taken over into Christianity, had to be accommodated to very different principles, drawn from other sources, which forbade its literal interpretation; to carry it through to what seemed to be its necessary implications was to be sure of falling into one theological pitfall or another."

The big pitfalls were: determinism on the on…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…