display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers
4 ideas
16131 | The metaphysically possible is what acceptable principles and categories will permit [Lowe] |
Full Idea: What is 'metaphysically' possible hinges …on the question of whether acceptable metaphysical principles and categories permit the existence of some state of affairs. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (The Possibility of Metaphysics [1998], 1.3) | |
A reaction: Lowe breezes along with confident assertions like this. I once heard Kit Fine tease him for over-confidence. All you do is work out 'acceptable' principles and categories, and you've cracked it! |
4195 | It is impossible to reach a valid false conclusion from true premises, so reason itself depends on possibility [Lowe] |
Full Idea: Reasoning itself depends upon a grasp of possibilities, because a valid argument is one in which it is not possible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.11) | |
A reaction: A very valuable corrective to my pessimistic view of philosophers' attempts to understand metaphysical necessity. But if we can only grasp natural necessity, then all reason is naturalistic. |
16532 | 'Epistemic' necessity is better called 'certainty' [Lowe] |
Full Idea: 'Epistemic' necessity is more properly to be called 'certainty'. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (What is the Source of Knowledge of Modal Truths? [2013], 1) | |
A reaction: Sounds wrong. Surely I can be totally certain of a contingent truth? |
14895 | 'Superficial' contingency: false in some world; 'Deep' contingency: no obvious verification [Evans, by Macià/Garcia-Carpentiro] |
Full Idea: Evans says intuitively a sentence is 'superficially' contingent if the function from worlds to truth values assigns F to some world; it is 'deeply' contingent if understanding it does not guarantee that there is a verifying state of affairs. | |
From: report of Gareth Evans (Reference and Contingency [1979]) by Macià/Garcia-Carpentiro - Introduction to 'Two-Dimensional Semantics' 2 | |
A reaction: This distinction is used by Davies and Humberstone (1980) to construct an early version of 2-D semantics (see under Language|Semantics). The point is that part comes from understanding it, and another part from assigning truth values. |