display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers
8 ideas
14213 | Anti-realists see the world as imaginary, or lacking joints, or beyond reference, or beyond truth [Lewis] |
Full Idea: Anti-realists say the only world is imaginary, or only has the parts or classes or relations we divide it into, or doubt that reference to the world is possible, or doubt that our interpretations can achieve truth. | |
From: David Lewis (Putnam's Paradox [1984], 'Why Anti-R') | |
A reaction: [compression of a paragraph on anti-realism] Lewis is a thoroughgoing realist. A nice example of the rhetorical device of ridiculing an opponent by suggesting that they don't even know what they themselves believe. |
8580 | Materialism is (roughly) that two worlds cannot differ without differing physically [Lewis] |
Full Idea: Final definition of 'Materialism': Among worlds where no natural properties alien to our world are instantiated, no two differ without differing physically; and two such worlds that are exactly alike physically are duplicates. | |
From: David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Min Mat') | |
A reaction: This would presumably allow for an anomalous monist/property dualist view of mind, but not full dualism. But if there are no psychophysical laws, what stops the mental changing while the physical remains the same? |
8909 | Abstractions may well be verbal fictions, in which we ignore some features of an object [Lewis] |
Full Idea: The inevitable hypothesis is that abstractions are verbal fictions. We say we are speaking about abstractions when we are speaking abstractly about the original thing. We are ignoring some features, not introducing a new thing lacking those features. | |
From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.7) | |
A reaction: Thus Lewis ends up pretty close to Locke and the traditional view. This makes abstraction not a feat of platonic perception, in which magical non-material objects are spotted, but a feat of counterfactual imagination. |
15543 | How do things combine to make states of affairs? Constituents can repeat, and fail to combine [Lewis] |
Full Idea: To me it is mysterious how a state of affairs is made out of its particular and universal constituents. Different states of affairs may have the very same constituents, and the existence of constituents by no means entails the existence of the states. | |
From: David Lewis (Armstrong on combinatorial possibility [1992], 'What is there') | |
A reaction: He is rejecting the structure of states of affairs as wholes made of parts. But then mereology was never going to explain the structure of the world. |
16458 | Semantic vagueness involves alternative and equal precisifications of the language [Lewis] |
Full Idea: If vagueness is semantic indeterminacy, then wherever we have vague statements, we have several alternative precisifications of the vague language involved, all with equal claims of being 'intended'. | |
From: David Lewis (Vague Identity: Evans misunderstood [1988], p.318) |
9057 | Vagueness is semantic indecision: we haven't settled quite what our words are meant to express [Lewis] |
Full Idea: I regard vagueness as semantic indecision: where we speak vaguely, we have not troubled to settle which of some range of precise meanings our words are meant to express. | |
From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 4.4 n32) | |
A reaction: But that seems to leave the problem of how you are going to decide the boundaries of 'heap' or 'bald', if we all agree to become more precise. In law precise boundaries are often drawn a bit arbitrarily, simply because a boundary is needed. |
9671 | Whether or not France is hexagonal depends on your standards of precision [Lewis] |
Full Idea: Say that France is hexagonal, and you thereby set the standards of precision low, and you speak the truth; say that France is not hexagonal (preferably on some other occasion) and you set the standards high, and again you speak the truth. | |
From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 4.5) | |
A reaction: This is very persuasive. It fits with my views on justification, which are to do with how high I (or more often 'we') decide to set the standards, thereby defining knowledge for that occasion. Hm. Has Lewis cracked vagueness? [P.S. NO!] |
15538 | Semantic indecision explains vagueness (if we have precisifications to be undecided about) [Lewis] |
Full Idea: Semantic indecision will suffice to explain the phenomenon of vagueness. [note] Provided that there exist the many precisifications for us to be undecided between. If you deny this, you will indeed have need of vague objects. | |
From: David Lewis (Many, but almost one [1993], 'Two solutions') | |
A reaction: [He mentions Van Inwagen 1990:213-83] There seem to be three solutions to vague objects: that they really are vague, that they are precise but we can't know precisely, or Lewis's view. I like Lewis's view. Do animals have any problem with vagueness? |