|
9455
|
Maybe proper names have the content of fixing a thing's category [Bealer]
|
|
Full Idea:
Some say that proper names have no descriptive content, but others think that although a name does not have the right sort of descriptive content which fixes a unique referent, it has a content which fixes the sort or category to which it belongs.
|
|
From:
George Bealer (Propositions [1998], §7)
|
|
A reaction:
Presumably 'Mary', and 'Felix', and 'Rover', and 'Smallville' are cases in point. There is a well known journalist called 'Manchester', a famous man called 'Hilary', a village in Hertfordshire called 'Matching Tie'... Interesting, though.
|
|
9454
|
The four leading theories of definite descriptions are Frege's, Russell's, Evans's, and Prior's [Bealer]
|
|
Full Idea:
The four leading theories of definite descriptions are Frege's, Russell's, Evans's, and Prior's, ...of which to many Frege's is the most intuitive of the four. Frege says they refer to the unique item (if it exists) which satisfies the predicate.
|
|
From:
George Bealer (Propositions [1998], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
He doesn't expound the other three, but I record this a corrective to the view that Russell has the only game in town.
|
|
8842
|
The best argument for immediate justification is not the Regress Argument, but considering examples [Pryor]
|
|
Full Idea:
The best argument for immediate justification is not the Regress Argument, but from considering examples, such as I have a headache, I am raising my arm, I am imagining my grandmother, or seeing how dominoes could fill a chessboard.
|
|
From:
James Pryor (There is immediate Justification [2005], §3)
|
|
A reaction:
Most of his examples depend on the fact that they cannot be challenged by anyone else, because they are within his own mind. The dominoes require complex thought. The first two could be erroneous if he was dreaming.
|
|
8843
|
Impure coherentists accept that perceptions can justify, unlike pure coherentists [Pryor]
|
|
Full Idea:
Pure coherentists claim that a belief can only be justified by its relations to other beliefs; impure coherentists are willing to give some non-beliefs, such as perceptual experiences, a justifying role.
|
|
From:
James Pryor (There is immediate Justification [2005], §4)
|
|
A reaction:
I think I would vote for the pure version. The distinction that is needed, I think, is between justification and evidence. You have to surmise causal links and explanations before you can see an experience as evidence, and then justification.
|
|
8846
|
Reasons for beliefs can be cited to others, unlike a raw headache experience [Pryor]
|
|
Full Idea:
If you have reasons for your belief, they should be considerations you could in principle cite, or give, to someone who doubted or challenged the belief. You can't give some else a non-propositional state like a headache.
|
|
From:
James Pryor (There is immediate Justification [2005], §6)
|
|
A reaction:
On the whole I agree, but if someone asked you to justify your claim that there is a beautiful sunset over the harbour, you could just say 'Look!'. Headaches are too private. The person must still see that the sunset is red, and not the window.
|
|
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?
|
|
9452
|
Propositions might be reduced to functions (worlds to truth values), or ordered sets of properties and relations [Bealer]
|
|
Full Idea:
The reductionist view of propositions sees them as either extensional functions from possible worlds to truth values, or as ordered sets of properties, relations, and perhaps particulars.
|
|
From:
George Bealer (Propositions [1998], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
The usual problem of all functional accounts is 'what is it about x that enables it to have that function?' And if they are sets, where does the ordering come in? A proposition isn't just a list of items in some particular order. Both wrong.
|
|
9451
|
Modal logic and brain science have reaffirmed traditional belief in propositions [Bealer]
|
|
Full Idea:
Philosophers have been skeptical about abstract objects, and so have been skeptical about propositions,..but with the rise of modal logic and metaphysics, and cognitive science's realism about intentional states, traditional propositions are now dominant.
|
|
From:
George Bealer (Propositions [1998], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
I personally strongly favour belief in propositions as brain states, which don't need a bizarre ontological status, but are essential to explain language, reasoning and communication.
|