Perceptions of events accumulate in time.
Perceptions of objects superimpose each other in time.
e.g., I see Jan, I see that he removed the glasses.
Events
- happen in time
- only some proper parts are present whenevery they are present
- all parts are essential
- are uniquely located in spacetime
- do not need a time-idnexed parthood relation
- do not change in time (as a whole)
Quine/Davidson: Events are individuated by the space-temporal reagion where they occur (whatever happens in a spatio-temporal region)
Kim: No, in the same spacio-temporal region, there may be multiple events. On the other hand, Kim does not allow compositionality of events modifiers - warming up and warming up slowly denote two different events.
The most adopted view is still the Davidsonian view, due to the possibility of compositionality.
Facts vs. events
- Events are thick entities, being amenable to be described at different level of detail.
- Facts, on the contrary have a thin nature.
e.g. "The sfere rotates" and "the sfere rotates slowly" are two facts; but you may want to refer to it as the same event.
Bennett's intermediate positions: event descriptions are just names.
- For Bennet, ordinary events are still exemplification of properties, but not of the properties we use to name them.
- They are rather exemplifications of much more complex, unaccessible properties. Event descritptions are just names that, yby picking up some of these properties.
-an event and its description: the coonection just depends on "local context and unpricnipled intuitions"
- Bennett's book: Events and their Names
Is there a systematic relatioship between events and their names (typically verbs)?
Thesis: such core aspects of what happens are based ont he qualitative changes of objects. The systematic relationship between verbs and events ais grounded in qualitative changes.
A different approach: looking inside of events, independenctly of the properties they exemplify.
Question: what is the difference between "the sfere is rotating" and "the sfere is warming up"? The difference is in the quality being considered.
Individuating events
- One way to individuate is by looking at the participants. What are the relevant participants?
- There is a vagueness in trying to individuate minimal participants. e.g. in the Titanic collision, only a part of the boat (the front) and a part of the iceberg were involved in the collision. These parts are the minimal participatns.
- It is helpful to focus on local qualities instead, which are less vague.
Qualities
While properties hold, qualities exist.
Individual qualities survive to change. May be seen variable embodiements of tropes.
A qualitative change echibits a certain variation pattern. When the quality is stable within a certain threshold, we say the quality is unchanged. So this notion also incorporates the notion of unchange.
To summarize:
- Qualitative changes are the simplest case of events.
- Ordinary events typically have a more complex strcuture, since we tend to cluster together multiple coginitively relevant qualitiative changes.
- Complex events are sums of qualitative changes within them, we distinguish: a) scenes, and
b) cogntively relevant complex events whose individuation criterrie are provided by event kinds (which are cognitive constructions.
Focal event vc. internal context
- focal event - it is what the kind primarily describes.
- internal context - the way the focal event occurs (there are other events involved, besides the focal event).
structure:
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário