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 support@jstor.org. . 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