Bundle Theory Question.: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » Bundle Theory Question. » Bundle Theory Question.

Bundle Theory Question.

Bundle Theory Question.

junior88
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 04, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 8

Posted 10/05/09 - 06:02 PM: Subject: Bundle Theory Question.	#1
I'm quite new to philosophy so I'm asking lots of seemingly dumb questions. I've read a few articles on the topic but none clearly defined the theory for me. Can someone please direct me to an article that does so or explains to me what the bundle theory is and how it explains the concept of "self". I know the basics of the theory but I can't get a grasp of it, or at least I don't believe what I think is correct. And if you can connect this theory with the theories of David Humes. Thanks. Edited by unenlightened on 10/05/09 - 11:58 PM. Reason: capitals, punctuation.

shaheen
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 04, 2009
Location: Plano, Texas

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 11

Posted 10/05/09 - 06:16 PM:	#2
An object is not an Object, but rather the objects properties.
Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand. Karl Marx

junior88
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 04, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 8

Posted 10/05/09 - 06:17 PM:	#3
Any way you can go a little deeper? Edited by unenlightened on 10/06/09 - 12:00 AM. Reason: capitals, punctuation.

shaheen
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 04, 2009
Location: Plano, Texas

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 11

Posted 10/06/09 - 02:45 PM:	#4
junior88 wrote: Any way you can go a little deeper? Thats pretty much all i know on the topic. Doesnt seem to make much sense to me either.
Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand. Karl Marx

jsidelko
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2009

Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 270

Posted 10/06/09 - 07:13 PM:	#5
Objects have no identity other than being a collection of properties.
thanatos

Herr Warum
Snapphane

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009
Location: Scania

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 10/15/09 - 10:03 PM:	#6
So the subject in a sentence plays the part, not relating to the substance, but rather as saying that so and so predicated is related to each other in some special way, that being a bundle of connected properties distinct from other bundles? I wonder if everything has been said of a thing if the predicates are exhausted, or if there remains something, the substrata, of wich its being cannot be predicated. In other words, what would be the nature of the substrata, if it itself had no properties. Some existent of unknown nature? I don´t know, seems to me the bundle theory makes more sense.

quickly
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 29, 2007

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 233

Posted 10/20/09 - 07:12 PM:	#7
Hume argues that we do not have positive ideas of ourselves understood as either the unity of an assemblage of different perceptions or a substance in which our perceptions inhere. These negative conclusions follow from two of his more interesting ones, viz., that the imagination as a creative entity balancing contradictory tendencies of nature and reason imposes unity onto objects and the self; and that the notion of a substantial entity results from the same type of action, or is a supposed and feigned existence providing unity and coherence within a systematic conception of reality. Because the supposed subject, or agent, only knows one particular type of thing for certain, i.e., his or her own impressions, and all other knowledge, especially that of existence and of relations, are inferences, a mind is supposed to be known as nothing more than an assemblage ("collection," "bundle") of its impressions and ideas, as present, in the memory, created by the imagination, etc. Hume's "possible ontology" principle allows one to extrapolate that there is "probably no substantial self such that that self has identity and is therefore this assemblage of perceptions." This is very similar to Deleuze's view in Anti-Oedipus that the subject is originally a physical and mental assemblage composed of affects, becoming habits, and organizing experience into customs, during which time the habits and customs create a false subject, and this subject takes over the assemblage without specific control over it, or believes itself to be the cause of its affects, when in fact it is an effect (in brief & as far as I can remember). Edited by quickly on 10/20/09 - 07:33 PM
Sunt bona, sunt quaedam mediocria, sunt mala plura quae legis hic; aliter non fit philosophyforums.com (cf., Martial, Epigrammata I.XVI)

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.