|
9469
|
Substitutional existential quantifier may explain the existence of linguistic entities [Parsons,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
I argue (against Quine) that the existential quantifier substitutionally interpreted has a genuine claim to express a concept of existence, which may give the best account of linguistic abstract entities such as propositions, attributes, and classes.
|
|
From:
Charles Parsons (A Plea for Substitutional Quantification [1971], p.156)
|
|
A reaction:
Intuitively I have my doubts about this, since the whole thing sounds like a verbal and conventional game, rather than anything with a proper ontology. Ruth Marcus and Quine disagree over this one.
|
|
17447
|
Parsons says counting is tagging as first, second, third..., and converting the last to a cardinal [Parsons,C, by Heck]
|
|
Full Idea:
In Parsons's demonstrative model of counting, '1' means the first, and counting says 'the first, the second, the third', where one is supposed to 'tag' each object exactly once, and report how many by converting the last ordinal into a cardinal.
|
|
From:
report of Charles Parsons (Frege's Theory of Numbers [1965]) by Richard G. Heck - Cardinality, Counting and Equinumerosity 3
|
|
A reaction:
This sounds good. Counting seems to rely on that fact that numbers can be both ordinals and cardinals. You don't 'convert' at the end, though, because all the way you mean 'this cardinality in this order'.
|
|
13417
|
If a mathematical structure is rejected from a physical theory, it retains its mathematical status [Parsons,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
If experience shows that some aspect of the physical world fails to instantiate a certain mathematical structure, one will modify the theory by sustituting a different structure, while the original structure doesn't lose its status as part of mathematics.
|
|
From:
Charles Parsons (Review of Tait 'Provenance of Pure Reason' [2009], §2)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to be a beautifully simple and powerful objection to the Quinean idea that mathematics somehow only gets its authority from physics. It looked like a daft view to begin with, of course.
|
|
2537
|
Types are properties, and tokens are events. Are they split between mental and physical, or not? [Sturgeon]
|
|
Full Idea:
The question is whether mental and physical types (which are properties) are distinct, and whether mental and physical tokens (which are events) are distinct.
|
|
From:
Scott Sturgeon (Matters of Mind [2000], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
Helpful. While the first one gives us the rather dodgy notion of 'property dualism', the second one seems to imply Cartesian dualism, if the events really are distinct. It seems to me that thought is an aspect of brain events, not a distinct event.
|
|
2535
|
The main argument for physicalism is its simple account of causation [Sturgeon]
|
|
Full Idea:
The dominant empirical argument for physicalism is the Overdetermination Argument: physics is closed and complete, mind is causally efficacious, the world isn't choc-full of overdetermination, so the mind is physical as well.
|
|
From:
Scott Sturgeon (Matters of Mind [2000], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
I find this argument utterly convincing. The idea that there is only one thing which is outside the interconnected causal nexus which seems to constitute the rest of reality, and that is a piece of meat inside our heads, strikes me as totally ridiculous.
|
|
7127
|
If men are good you should keep promises, but they aren't, so you needn't [Machiavelli]
|
|
Full Idea:
If all men were good, promising-breaking would not be good, but because they are bad and do not keep their promises to you, you likewise do not have to keep yours to them.
|
|
From:
Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince [1513], Ch.18)
|
|
A reaction:
A rather depressing proposal to get your promise-breaking in first, based on the pessimistic view that people cannot be improved. The subsequent history of ethics in Europe showed Machiavelli to be wrong. Gentlemen began to keep their word.
|
|
6308
|
A sensible conqueror does all his harmful deeds immediately, because people soon forget [Machiavelli]
|
|
Full Idea:
A prudent conqueror makes a list of all the harmful deeds he must do, and does them all at once, so that he need not repeat them every day, which then makes men feel secure, and gains their support by treating them well.
|
|
From:
Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince [1513], Ch.8)
|
|
A reaction:
This might work for a new government in a democracy, or a new boss in a business. It sounds horribly true; dreadful deeds done a long time ago can be completely forgotten, as when reformed criminals become celebrities.
|
|
6307
|
A desire to conquer, and men who do it, are always praised, or not blamed [Machiavelli]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is very natural and normal to wish to conquer, and when men do it who can, they always will be praised, or not blamed.
|
|
From:
Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince [1513], Ch.3)
|
|
A reaction:
This view seems shocking to us, but it seems to me that this was a widely held view up until the time of Nietzsche, but came to a swift end with the invention of the machine gun in about 1885, followed by the heavy bomber and atomic bomb.
|
|
19813
|
All legislators invoke God in support of extraordinary laws, because their justification is not obvious [Machiavelli]
|
|
Full Idea:
There has never been a single legislator who, in proposing extraordinary laws, did not have recourse to God, for otherwise they would not be accepted, since many benefits known to a prudent man do not have evident persuasive reasons.
|
|
From:
Niccolo Machiavelli (The Discourses [1520], 1.11), quoted by Jean-Jacques Rousseau - The Social Contract (tr Cress) II.7 n8
|
|
A reaction:
It does seem to be an important role for God and state religion, to give support to decisions and laws which might not be intrinsically popular.
|
|
7126
|
Rulers should preserve the foundations of religion, to ensure good behaviour and unity [Machiavelli]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is the duty of the rulers of a republic or a kingdom to preserve the foundations of the religion they hold; if they do this, it will be an easy thing for them to keep their state religious, and consequently good and united.
|
|
From:
Niccolo Machiavelli (The Discourses [1520], I.12)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the germ of Marx's view, that the sole role of religion is political, as a tool used by the ruling classes to keep the populace in their place. The same idea can be found in Critias (Idea 542). But what is wrong with some central moral guidance?
|