|
17263
|
Why do rationalists accept Sufficient Reason, when it denies the existence of fundamental facts? [Correia/Schnieder]
|
|
Full Idea:
What is most puzzling about the rationalist tradition is the steadfast certainty with which the Principle of Sufficient Reason was often accepted, since it in effect denies that there are fundamental facts.
|
|
From:
Correia,F/Schnieder,B (Grounding: an opinionated introduction [2012], 2.2)
|
|
A reaction:
A very simple and interesting observation. The principle implies either a circle of reasons, or an infinite regress of reasons. Nothing can be labelled as 'primitive' or 'foundational' or 'given'. The principle is irrational!
|
|
17270
|
Is existential dependence by grounding, or do grounding claims arise from existential dependence? [Correia/Schnieder]
|
|
Full Idea:
We may take existential dependence to be a relation induced by certain cases of grounding, but one may also think that facts about existential dependence are prior to corresponding ground claims, and in fact ground those claims.
|
|
From:
Correia,F/Schnieder,B (Grounding: an opinionated introduction [2012], 4.3)
|
|
A reaction:
I would vote for grounding, since dependence seems more abstract, and seems to demand explanation, whereas grounding seems more like a feature of reality, and to resist further intrinsic explanation (on the whole).
|
|
17267
|
The identity of two facts may depend on how 'fine-grained' we think facts are [Correia/Schnieder]
|
|
Full Idea:
There is a disagreement on the issue of factual identity, concerning the 'granularity' of facts, the question of how fine-grained they are.
|
|
From:
Correia,F/Schnieder,B (Grounding: an opinionated introduction [2012], 3.3)
|
|
A reaction:
If they are very fine-grained, then no two descriptions of a supposed fact will capture the same details. If we go broadbrush, facts become fuzzy and less helpful. 'Fact' was never going to be a clear term.
|
|
16236
|
Maybe our persistence conditions concern bodies, rather than persons [Olson, by Hawley]
|
|
Full Idea:
Instead of attributing person-like persistence conditions to bodies, we could attribute body-like persistence conditions to persons, …so human persons are identical with human organisms.
|
|
From:
report of Eric T. Olson (The Human Animal [1997]) by Katherine Hawley - How Things Persist 5.10
|
|
A reaction:
In the case of pre-birth and advanced senility, Olson thinks we could have the body without the person, so person is a 'phase sortal' of bodies. A good theory, which seems to answer a lot of questions. 'Person' may be an abstraction.
|
|
6669
|
For 'animalism', I exist before I became a person, and can continue after it, so I am not a person [Olson, by Lowe]
|
|
Full Idea:
According to 'animalism', I existed before I was a person and I may well go one existing for some time after I cease to be a person; hence, I am not essentially a person, but a human organism.
|
|
From:
report of Eric T. Olson (The Human Animal [1997]) by E.J. Lowe - Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind Ch.10
|
|
A reaction:
There is a very real sense in which an extremely senile person has 'ceased to exist' (e.g. as the person I used to love). On the whole, though, I think that Olson is right, and yet 'person' is an important concept. Neither concept is all-or-nothing.
|