• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • All PEL Episodes
    • Most Recent Episodes
    • Categorized by Topic
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Upcoming Episodes
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Store
    • Cart
    • Checkout
  • Members
    • Membership Options
    • PEL Not School Introduction
    • Log In
  • Support PEL
    • Patreon
  • Write for Us
  • Contact

Westerhoff on Nagarjuna on Metaphysically Basic Entities

October 25, 2010 by Mark Linsenmayer 1 Comment

ATOMOne of the topics we didn't really get into on the podcast, and which in our Buddhism reading I actually found the most interesting, is the metaphysics of basic elements of the world.

Nagarjuna argues that reality has no ultimate foundation, and in the episode we discussed that in terms of the possibility of Cartesian "substance" being basic or Spinoza's solution of making God the single, basic substance. But what about atoms, either physical, or logical (as in Russell/Wittgenstein) or something else (as in Leibniz)? In all of these cases, the elements are supposed to be basic, i.e. not defined necessarily in terms of something else; this is what Nagarjuna is arguing against as svabhāva, or substance. Here's what Westerhoff (in the summary section of his book:, p. 203-205, has to say about this:

Another difficulty arising if we assume there are substances is the relationship between such substances and their properties. We cannot just conceive of some substance as an individual instantiating properties. ...Suppose that water-atoms are substances and that their only intrinsic property is wetness. Now what is the individual in which wetness inheres? Since it is not characterized by any other properties, it must be some kind of propertyless bare particular. What makes it a bare particular? Given that we are dealing with substances here, it had better not depend on some other object. But if it is a bare particular by svabhāva and being a bare particular is therefore its intrinsic nature we are in the same situation as we were with the water-atoms and their wetness. For now we can ask what the individual is in which being a bare particular inheres, and then we are well on our way to an infinite regress. Note that this problem does not go away if we feel uneasy about the property “being a bare particular” and do not want to admit it. For we have to assume that the individual has some determinate nature due to which it is a bearer of its properties and the difficulty will just reappear with whatever we take such a nature to be.

It does not help much if we conceive of substances as particularized
properties or tropes instead, for then it is unclear how we can individuate one wetness-trope from another. We cannot differentiate them according to the individuals in which they inhere, because we have just rejected the existence of individuals at the level of substances. We cannot say that this wetness-trope is different from that because they turn up in different samples of water, since the samples of water are just collections of tropes. Of course we could try to tell apart the various trope-substances by the collections in which they occur (or, more precisely, by which other tropes they are related
to via a higher-order compresence-trope). The difficulty for this solution is that it introduces dependence-relations via the back door, for every trope will existentially depend on being connected to just these other tropes via a compresence-trope—we cannot take a trope and “move” it to another collection.

Since we want to conceive of substances as entities that are not existentially dependent on one another, this approach inevitably introduces a certain tension into our system. It thus becomes apparent that once more a conceptual scheme which can be more or less straightforwardly applied to non-substances breaks down once we attempt to analyze the supposedly foundational objects of our world in terms of it.

In other words, if you have substance as metaphysically basic, you have to conceive of this substance as without properties, which makes no sense, and if you have properties as metaphysically basic, then you have to think of them as free floating (not tied to substances), which makes it hard to individuate occurrences of the property (i.e. what would relate the different "greens" floating around?). Wittgenstein's solution the Tractatus was to say that the "fact" connecting a property to a particular was the basic unit, and that the elements connected by such a fact don't even make sense in isolation.

Do a search for some of the quoted text above in the Amazon preview of Westerhoff's book to read more.

-Mark Linsenmayer

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: PEL's Notes Tagged With: atomism, Buddhism, Nagarjuna, philosophy blog, philosophy podcast

Trackbacks

  1. Nagarjuna on the Thing-in-Itself | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    October 26, 2010 at 9:21 am

    […] Forums/Links « Westerhoff on Nagarjuna on Metaphysically Basic Elements […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Check out St. John's College
Become a PEL Citizen

Recent Comments

  • Mark Linsenmayer on Episode 185: Ethics in Homer’s “Odyssey” Feat. Translator Emily Wilson (Part One)
  • Kelly Hughes on Episode 168: Darwin’s “Origin of Species” (Citizen Edition)
  • Marilyn Asem on Episode 185: Ethics in Homer’s “Odyssey” Feat. Translator Emily Wilson (Part One)
  • Sam Weller on Episode 181: Hannah Arendt on the Banality of Evil (Part Two)
  • Cgeeeeee on How Not to Make a Movie in the Multiverse

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • Aftershow
  • Audiobook
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • New Books in Philosophy
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | iTunes

Copyright © 2009 - 2018 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy