Combining Philosophers

Ideas for Anaxarchus, Stephen Read and Richard Posner

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these philosophers

display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers


4 ideas

10. Modality / B. Possibility / 8. Conditionals / a. Conditionals
The point of conditionals is to show that one will accept modus ponens [Read]
     Full Idea: The point of conditionals is to show that one will accept modus ponens.
     From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.3)
     A reaction: [He attributes this idea to Frank Jackson] This makes the point, against Grice, that the implication of conditionals is not conversational but a matter of logical convention. See Idea 21396 for a very different view.
The standard view of conditionals is that they are truth-functional [Read]
     Full Idea: The standard view of conditionals is that they are truth-functional, that is, that their truth-values are determined by the truth-values of their constituents.
     From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.3)
Some people even claim that conditionals do not express propositions [Read]
     Full Idea: Some people even claim that conditionals do not express propositions.
     From: Stephen Read (Thinking About Logic [1995], Ch.7)
     A reaction: See Idea 14283, where this appears to have been 'proved' by Lewis, and is not just a view held by some people.
10. Modality / B. Possibility / 8. Conditionals / d. Non-truthfunction conditionals
Conditionals are just a shorthand for some proof, leaving out the details [Read]
     Full Idea: Truth enables us to carry various reports around under certain descriptions ('what Iain said') without all the bothersome detail. Similarly, conditionals enable us to transmit a record of proof without its detail.
     From: Stephen Read (Formal and Material Consequence [1994], 'Repres')
     A reaction: This is his proposed Redundancy Theory of conditionals. It grows out of the problem with Modus Ponens mentioned in Idea 14184. To say that there is always an implied 'proof' seems a large claim.