|
10438
|
Definite descriptions are usually rigid in subject, but not in predicate, position [Sainsbury]
|
|
Full Idea:
Definite descriptions used with referential intentions (usually in subject position) are normally rigid, ..but in predicate position they are normally not rigid, because there is no referential intention.
|
|
From:
Mark Sainsbury (The Essence of Reference [2006], 18.5)
|
|
A reaction:
'The man in the blue suit is the President' seems to fit, but 'The President is the head of state' doesn't. Seems roughly right, but language is always too complex for philosophers.
|
|
10502
|
We can rise by degrees through abstraction, with higher levels representing more things [Arnauld,A/Nicole,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
I can start with a triangle, and rise by degrees to all straight-lined figures and to extension itself. The lower degree will include the higher degree. Since the higher degree is less determinate, it can represent more things.
|
|
From:
Arnauld / Nicole (Logic (Port-Royal Art of Thinking) [1662], I.5)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] This attempts to explain the generalising ability of abstraction cited in Idea 10501. If you take a complex object and eliminate features one by one, it can only 'represent' more particulars; it could hardly represent fewer.
|
|
8983
|
If 'red' is vague, then membership of the set of red things is vague, so there is no set of red things [Sainsbury]
|
|
Full Idea:
Sets have sharp boundaries, or are sharp objects; an object either definitely belongs to a set, or it does not. But 'red' is vague; there objects which are neither definitely red nor definitely not red. Hence there is no set of red things.
|
|
From:
Mark Sainsbury (Concepts without Boundaries [1990], §2)
|
|
A reaction:
Presumably that will entail that there IS a set of things which can be described as 'definitely red'. If we describe something as 'definitely having a hint of red about it', will that put it in a set? In fact will the applicability of 'definitely' do?
|
|
8986
|
We should abandon classifying by pigeon-holes, and classify around paradigms [Sainsbury]
|
|
Full Idea:
We must reject the classical picture of classification by pigeon-holes, and think in other terms: classifying can be, and often is, clustering round paradigms.
|
|
From:
Mark Sainsbury (Concepts without Boundaries [1990], §8)
|
|
A reaction:
His conclusion to a discussion of the problem of vagueness, where it is identified with concepts which have no boundaries. Pigeon-holes are a nice exemplar of the Enlightenment desire to get everything right. I prefer Aristotle's categories, Idea 3311.
|
|
8984
|
If concepts are vague, people avoid boundaries, can't spot them, and don't want them [Sainsbury]
|
|
Full Idea:
Vague concepts are boundaryless, ...and the manifestations are an unwillingness to draw any such boundaries, the impossibility of identifying such boundaries, and needlessness and even disutility of such boundaries.
|
|
From:
Mark Sainsbury (Concepts without Boundaries [1990], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
People have a very fine-tuned notion of whether the sharp boundary of a concept is worth discussing. The interesting exception are legal people, who are often forced to find precision where everyone else hates it. Who deserves to inherit the big house?
|
|
8985
|
Boundaryless concepts tend to come in pairs, such as child/adult, hot/cold [Sainsbury]
|
|
Full Idea:
Boundaryless concepts tend to come in systems of contraries: opposed pairs like child/adult, hot/cold, weak/strong, true/false, and complex systems of colour terms. ..Only a contrast with 'adult' will show what 'child' excludes.
|
|
From:
Mark Sainsbury (Concepts without Boundaries [1990], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
This might be expected. It all comes down to the sorites problem, of when one thing turns into something else. If it won't merge into another category, then presumably the isolated concept stays applicable (until reality terminates it? End of sheep..).
|
|
20653
|
Six reduction levels: groups, lives, cells, molecules, atoms, particles [Putnam/Oppenheim, by Watson]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are six 'reductive levels' in science: social groups, (multicellular) living things, cells, molecules, atoms, and elementary particles.
|
|
From:
report of H.Putnam/P.Oppenheim (Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis [1958]) by Peter Watson - Convergence 10 'Intro'
|
|
A reaction:
I have the impression that fields are seen as more fundamental that elementary particles. What is the status of the 'laws' that are supposed to govern these things? What is the status of space and time within this picture?
|
|
16784
|
Forms make things distinct and explain the properties, by pure form, or arrangement of parts [Arnauld,A/Nicole,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
The form is what renders a thing such and distinguishes it from others, whether it is a being really distinct from the matter, according to the Schools, or whether it is only the arrangement of the parts. By this form one must explain its properties.
|
|
From:
Arnauld / Nicole (Logic (Port-Royal Art of Thinking) [1662], III.18 p240), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 27.6
|
|
A reaction:
If we ask 'what explains the properties of this thing' it is hard to avoid coming up with something that might be called the 'form'. Note that they allow either substantial or corpuscularian forms. It is hard to disagree with the idea.
|
|
10501
|
A triangle diagram is about all triangles, if some features are ignored [Arnauld,A/Nicole,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
If I draw an equilateral triangle on a piece of paper, ..I shall have an idea of only a single triangle. But if I ignore all the particular circumstances and focus on the three equal lines, I will be able to represent all equilateral triangles.
|
|
From:
Arnauld / Nicole (Logic (Port-Royal Art of Thinking) [1662], I.5)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] They observed that we grasp composites through their parts, and now that we can grasp generalisations through particulars, both achieved by the psychological act of abstraction, thus showing its epistemological power.
|
|
10431
|
Things are thought to have a function, even when they can't perform them [Sainsbury]
|
|
Full Idea:
On one common use of the notion of a function, something can possess a function which it does not, or even cannot, perform. A malformed heart is to pump blood, even if such a heart cannot in fact pump blood.
|
|
From:
Mark Sainsbury (The Essence of Reference [2006], 18.2)
|
|
A reaction:
One might say that the heart in a dead body had the function of pumping blood, but does it still have that function? Do I have the function of breaking the world 100 metres record, even though I can't quite manage it? Not that simple.
|