[lit-ideas] Re: Boyleiana

  • From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 19:28:24 -0400

In a message dated 9/3/2015 4:19:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes:
Atomism in Russell (and I assume in the early W.) has to do with atomic
facts, which are expressed by atomic propositions. It is not a physical


The Stanford entry makes a reference to a distinction here, which I hope is
more than 'verbal' or not (to echo McEvoy) "merely" verbal.

Boyle distinguishes between a corpuscule and an atom.

I read from Wikipedia:

"Corpuscularianism is a physical theory that supposed all matter to be
composed of minute particles, which became important in the seventeenth
century. Among the leading corpuscularians [was] ... Boyle ...
is similar to the theory of atomism, except that where atoms were supposed
to be indivisible, corpuscles could in principle be divided."

Of course the implicature is "in principle".

Grice found "in principle" otiose. He preferred "in the end".


To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: