1. No category

Mind Association
McTaggart's Nature of Existence, Vol. I. Comments and Amendments
Author(s): S. V. Keeling
Source: Mind, New Series, Vol. 47, No. 188 (Oct., 1938), pp. 547-550
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Mind Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2250390 .
Accessed: 20/12/2014 15:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Oxford University Press and Mind Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Mind.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 163.1.255.60 on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 15:20:06 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
VIII.-NOTES.
MaTAGGART'S NATURE OF EXISTENCE, VOL. I.
AND AMENDMENTS.
COMMENTS
the publicationof the firstvolumeof the Natureof Existencein
1921 and until his death in 1925,McTaggartcontinuedworkingon the
and fromtimeto timewouldrecordmiscellaneous
detailof his arguments,
memorandain the marginsof his own copy of the book. This personal
copyofMcTaggart'scame intomy possessionwiththe partofhis library
on several
whichMrs.McTaggartleftto me at herdeath. Havingprofited
it seemedthat by transcribing
occasionsfromthesemarginalcomments,
and makingthempublic,I should be of serviceto otherswho believe
McTaggart'sworkto meritthe closestattention.
The additionsare in the natureof re-statements
designedto remove
of errors,possibleimprovements
made.
corrections
tentatively
ambiguity,
and a few suggestionsfromcolleaguesat Cambridge. Some thirtyof
of whichuse shouldbe made whenthe printing
the entriesare corrigenda
of a second editionis contemplated.
, (These thirtyincludefiveof the
sevenitemsrecordedby Dr. Broad as ' Misprints' on p. lvi ofhisExaminaneitherthe firstnor
tion,Vol. I. AlthoughMcTaggart'scopy confirms
the sixthentryin Dr. Broad's list,therecan be no doubtthat both are
' Misprints'.) I have not reproducedthe fewsuggestions
fromcolleagues
since the recordconveysno suggestionthat McTaggarthad decidedto
acceptthem.
is far fromeasy to read, and some entries,
McTaggart'shandwriting
particularlythose made in pencil and now partlyobscured,have been
difficult
to decipher. I have not sparedtimeor painsto securethat they
and wherethereseemeddoubtofthe meaning,
are accuratelytranscribed,
of it independently
of the note, by
I triedto confirm
my understanding
inferencefromthe relevantpart of McTaggart'sdoctrine. All that I
is enclosedin square
have added to the notes by way of amplification
brackets.
AFTER
University
College,
University
ofLondon.
S. V.
PAGE
KEELING.
xix Table ofContents; Sect. 257 :-Delete " thereseemsno groundfor"
", so that the sentencewillread:
and " or unityofmanifestation
is themore
" As to thenaturesofsubstances,unityofcomposition
appropriate
expression."
and before
3 Lines 2-3, insertbefore"all that exists", "(1)";
"Existence as a whole", "(2) ".
Marginalnote: " Make clearthatthesearedifferent.Wardmissed
this."
This content downloaded from 163.1.255.60 on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 15:20:06 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
548
NOTES.
PAGE
6 Marginalnoteto lines8-10: " Is thistoo strong?"
11 Note to firstpar. of ? 10:-" What is a Fact ? Is it a relation?
Rathera relationship."
16 Note to firstpar. of ? 16:-" Aquinas says that if nothingexisted,
therewould be no truth,but therewouldbe 'matter of truth'.
by E. Gilson,p. 41-2."
Le Thomisme,
19 Line 2, for " fact ", read " event ".
20 Note to last par. of ? 19:-" It is a belief,whichhas the relationof
to all facts,whichis false. A table which
non-correspondence
to any factwouldnot be false. Also,it is the
did not correspond
whichis
but of non-truth,
relation,not of non-correspondence,
a specialsortof correspondence."
21
Line 7, for " fact ", read "event ".
24 Line 3 of ? 26:-After "implies", insert" or does not imply".
Marginalnote: " The latteris the case with propositionscontaining ' may '."
Line 9 of? 26: -After " assertion", insert" But ' redis a quality'
or ' red is visual' does not strictlyassert a concomitanceof
but assertsone characteristic
ofanother."
characteristics,
31 Note to thirdpar. of ? 33: -" But we could say ' (a characteristic
whose possessioninvolves d[?]ation) is not possessed by St.
Michael'. And the descriptionwithinbracketsdoes not apply
to anything,
any morethan 'presentHigh Treasurerof England'
does."
42
51
Last word of footnote:-for " facts ", read " events ".
Lines 4-5 of footnote:-for "such a statement . . . it asserts ",
61
8 lines frombottom:-for " say to define", read " tryto define . . .
read " such statements,thoughthey have a certainuniformrelationto truth,are themselvesfalse,sincetheyassert . . ."
64 Line 6 of ? 64:-for " V, W, and Z ", read" V,Wand Y ".
65 Note on the phrases" all the qualities" and " the Nature of" in
the last par. before footnote:-"
Broad objects (MIND, p. 320)
that in this case Naturewould includeitselfas a part. Let us
'all the simplequalities'. (But that wouldnot do
say therefore
because you db not get complexq[ualities]by merelyaddingthe
qualities'.) "
simple. One mightsay, ' all non-compound
to " Broad" is to C. D. Broad'scriticalnoticeof the
[The reference
vol. i, in MIND,VOl.XXX,1921; p. 320.]
NatureofExistence,
73 Line 18, note on "all red-hairedarchdeacons":-" I meant the
Group,not the Class. cp. Stout'sHerz Lecture."
and Proposi[Full reference:G. F. Stout,The Natureof Universals
Lecture,HenrietteHerz Trust,
tions(p. 7), AnnualPhilosophical'
1921:-Proc. BritishAcad., vol. x; also publishedseparately.]
77 Lines 15-16, note on " It is self-evident . . . has perceptions":
" Shouldone rathersay thatit is a verycertaininference
fromtwo
?"
of perception
self-evident
perceptions
".
89 Lines 20 and 23, in both,for " relations", read " relationships
98 Lines 7-8, for "knowledge of A which .. . knowledgeof A's
qualities", read "knowledgeof A the unambiguityof whichis
not dependenton the unambiguityof my knowledgeof A's
qualities, . . ."
Line 21, inserta commaafter" quality", and insert" individuality"
between" which" and " would".
This content downloaded from 163.1.255.60 on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 15:20:06 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
549
NOTES.
PAGE
the footnote:-" What is now said in Chap. 37 leads
98 Note following
to the conclusionthat I always perceivea perceptionas having
an exclusivedescription; the only thing having this q[uality]
knownto me at this[? time]."
101 Line 19, "their relations" is qualifiedby note: "some, but not
all."
necessarily
103 Line 16, between " Henry VIII ", and " a substance ", insert"?the
nameof".
Two linesfrombottom,delete" ofall ".
114 Line 27, for " intrinsically", read " extrinsically".
118 Line 8, comment on " . . . can know the substance independently
of . . ." :-" Too strong. cp. Note, p. 98. What I mean is
withouthaving a complete
that I can know it unambiguously
description."
152 Note on ? 139:-" 'Present' throughoutthis page is ambiguous.
but meansactual."
It does not meananything[flimport[ant]
Commenton par. beginning" This result will appear . . .":
" Strictlyspeaking,it isn'tthesame substance,but the substances
whichmake it up by succeedingone another. But this fact is
oftenspokenof as I have spokenof it in the text,and the point
withthisfact."
is that ourtheoryis notincompatible
171 Line 18, for "' shopmen ", read " shopman ".
176 To footnote,this referenceis added :-" Cp. V, 35, p. 5 ".
[McTag-
to the place in his thenunpublished
gart appearsto be referring
whichI have identified
MSS. of Vol. II of the NatureofExistence
publishedworkas being: Vol. II, Book V,
in that posthumously
Chap. 35, ? 376 (p. 59).]
179 Line 12, delete" no " before" content".
184 Last twolinesoffootnote:for" it " in bothlines,read" humanity".
191 Line 11,for "more than one part", read " two or moreparts".
read " such descriptions".
202
Line 12, for "them
214
tion ", see line 8 ff.]
Note on " And therefore it is necessary
215
[For " the others", see p. 213.]
Line 3, for " points ", read " parts ".
",
208 Lines 6-7, note on "implied, withoutincluding,":-" Ward says
II, 156."
Meinongmakesthis distinction-Hume-Studien,
210 Line 4, note on "a one-to-onerelation":-" It is not one-to-one
withthe substanceson thirdassumption." [For " thirdassump. . .
is Reciprocal " in
last par. of ? 201: -" This is necessary,not only for the third
case, but forthe otherstoo."
222 Line 19, for " earlierby the later", read " later by the earlier".
Note to second par. of ? 210 :--" Ambiguous. The 'more' does
notgo with' earlierto later', or ' theless ' with'later to earlier'."
Two linesfrombottom;for"it is taken", read "they aretaken";
["it willbe " in last lineshouldread " theywillbe ..
for " I, 5, Section 5 ", read
226 Footnote:-Elementsof Metaphysics,
" II, 5, Section 5
".
232 Line 8,for" or" read" on ".
", add " or at anyrateall ofthem."
239 Line 4, after" description
Marginalcommenton whole of ? 225 :-" Is this valid? Would it
not fixanothersufficient
descriptionof BWC,and so cut all suff.
? No,
descr. of B!C out of the minimumadequate description
This content downloaded from 163.1.255.60 on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 15:20:06 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
550
NOTES.
PAGE
I don't think-so. For to fix on anotherq[ualityjin B!C.D would
ofB!C/D, and so would
not necessarily
givea sufficient
description
notcontribute
to a suff.descr.ofB!C. And,again,iftheq[uality]
did give a suff.descr.ofB!C/D, yet B!C mighthave anothersuff.
descr.-besidesthe one by det[ermnining]
and the
corr[espondence]
one by the new suff.descr.of its parts. (See insertion
in 1. 4)."
" referred
[The " insertion
to is the entryrecordedimmediately
beforethismarginalcomment.]
240 Line 18; for " which0 has . . . " read " whichC has
241 Note to ? 228: -" This confusesthreepossibilities: (1) different
sortsof d[etermining]
withsame primaryp[art],
c[orrespondence]
(2) same sort of d[etermining]
with different
c[orrespondence]
primaryparts, (3) both d[etermining]c[orrespondence]and
p[rimary]
partsdifferent."
246 Line 2, note on " give us " :-" betterkeep to the phrasein ? 229,
'intrinsically determine'."
".
266 Last wordof ? 253; for" composition
", read" manifestation
280 Note to secondpar. of ? 265:-" Keynes,in his Treatiseon Probability(p. 236), holds,I thinkrightly,that mererepetitionof instances does make a thingmore likely,but does not by itself
orbecome
ensurethattheprobability
shalleverapproachcertainty,
morelikelythannot. Hencethereis no disagreement
betweenus."
ifwe heldthatthere
286 Commenton ? 270:-" Would thisbe different
was only a finitenumberof qualities,so that the antecedent
chancethat X did determineY was I00? Cp. J. M. Keynes,
p. 258."
and marginalnoteruns: "Neces296 Line 2; " possible" is underlined,
sary. For in B!G the qualityof beinga part of B is not det[ermined]by C."
300 Line 15; delete" other" [so reading" all the membersof that
group."]
and additions:
310 Index: Corrections
' Characteristic
', for " 3 ", read " 5 ".
After' Dimension', insert" Element,63."
' FundamentalSystem', for " 248 ", read " 247 ".
[' MinimumAdequate Description ', for " 193 ", read " 194 "].
After' Perception', insert' Phaenomenonbenefundatum,
53.'
AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE SPECIAL THEORY
OF RELATIVITY.
to MND last year,' I have discussedthe
IN a note whichI contributed
ofthe dual representation
ofthe light-tracks
by a pointcircle
significance
euclideanspace-time
and a pair of isotropiclines in a two-dimensional
derivationof Einstein'sMechanicsfromconcontinuum.The following
siderations
suchas thosesuggestedby classicalphysicsmayserveto show
regardedas a " generalboundary
thattheLorentz-Einstein
transformation
" containsan implicitreference
to thiscontinuum.
condition
1 MIND, N.S., Vol. xlvi, No. 183, p. 415.
This content downloaded from 163.1.255.60 on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 15:20:06 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions