51 ideas
3123 | Science is in the business of carving nature at the joints [Segal] |
Full Idea: Science is in the business of carving nature at the joints. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 5) |
3125 | Psychology studies the way rationality links desires and beliefs to causality [Segal] |
Full Idea: A person's desires and beliefs tend to cause what they tend to rationalise. This coordination of causality and rationalisation lies at the heart of psychology. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 5.3) |
4456 | Epistemological Ockham's Razor demands good reasons, but the ontological version says reality is simple [Moreland] |
Full Idea: Ockham's Razor has an epistemological version, which says we should not multiply existences or explanations without adequate reason, and an ontological version, which says reality is simple, and so a simpler ontology represents it more accurately. | |
From: J.P. Moreland (Universals [2001], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: A nice distinction. Is it reality which is simple, or us? One shouldn't write off the ontological version. If one explanation is simpler than the others, there may be a reason in nature for that. |
4474 | Existence theories must match experience, possibility, logic and knowledge, and not be self-defeating [Moreland] |
Full Idea: A theory of existence should 1) be consistent with what actually exists, 2) be consistent with what could exist, 3) not make existence impossible (e.g. in space-time), 4) not violate logic, 5) make knowing the theory possible. | |
From: J.P. Moreland (Universals [2001], Ch.6) | |
A reaction: A nice bit of metaphilosophical analysis. I still doubt whether a theory of existence is possible (something has to be 'given' a priori), but this is a good place to start the attempt. |
4461 | Tropes are like Hume's 'impressions', conceived as real rather than as ideal [Moreland] |
Full Idea: Tropes are (says Campbell) substances (in Hume's sense), and indeed resemble his impressions conceived realistically rather than idealistically. | |
From: J.P. Moreland (Universals [2001], Ch.3) | |
A reaction: An interesting link. It doesn't get rid of the problem Hume has, of saying when two impressions are the same. Are they types or tokens? Trope-theory claims they are tokens. Hume's ontology includes 'resemblance'. |
4462 | A colour-trope cannot be simple (as required), because it is spread in space, and so it is complex [Moreland] |
Full Idea: A property-instance must be spread out in space, or it is not clear how a colour nature can be present, but then it has to be a complex entity, and tropes are supposed to be simple entities. | |
From: J.P. Moreland (Universals [2001], Ch.3) | |
A reaction: Seems a fair point. Nothing else in reality can be sharply distinguished, so why should 'simple' and 'complex'? |
4463 | In 'four colours were used in the decoration', colours appear to be universals, not tropes [Moreland] |
Full Idea: If a decorator says that they used four colours to decorate a house, four tropes is not what was meant, and the statement seems to view colours as universals. | |
From: J.P. Moreland (Universals [2001], Ch.3) | |
A reaction: Although I am suspicious of using language to deduce ontology, you have to explain why certain statements (like this) are even possible to make. |
4451 | If properties are universals, what distinguishes two things which have identical properties? [Moreland] |
Full Idea: If properties are universals, what account can be given of the individuation of two entities that have all their pure properties in common? | |
From: J.P. Moreland (Universals [2001], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: Is this a big problem? Maybe only a space-time location can do it. Or, in the nice case where the universe is just two identical spheres, it may be impossible. |
4453 | One realism is one-over-many, which may be the model/copy view, which has the Third Man problem [Moreland] |
Full Idea: One version of realism says that the universal does not enter into the being of its instances, and thus is a One-Over-Many. One version of this is the model/copy view, but this is not widely held, because of difficulties such as the Third Man Argument. | |
From: J.P. Moreland (Universals [2001], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: This presumably arises if the model is held to have the properties of the copy (self-predication), and looks like a bad theory |
4464 | Realists see properties as universals, which are single abstract entities which are multiply exemplifiable [Moreland] |
Full Idea: Traditional realism is the view that a property is a universal construed as a multiply exemplifiable abstract entity that is a numerically identical constituent in each of its instances. | |
From: J.P. Moreland (Universals [2001], Ch.4) | |
A reaction: Put like that, it seems hard to commit oneself fully to realism. How can two red buses contain one abstract object spread out between them. Common sense says there are two 'rednesses' which resemble one another, which is a version of nominalism. |
4449 | Evidence for universals can be found in language, communication, natural laws, classification and ideals [Moreland] |
Full Idea: Those who believe in universals appeal to the meaningfulness of language, the lawlike nature of causation, the inter-subjectivity of thinking, our ability to classify new entities, gradation, and the need for perfect standards or paradigms. | |
From: J.P. Moreland (Universals [2001], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: Of these, language and communication ought to be explicable by convention, but classification and natural laws look to me like the best evidence. |
4450 | The traditional problem of universals centres on the "One over Many", which is the unity of natural classes [Moreland] |
Full Idea: Historically the problem of universals has mainly been about the "One over Many", which involves giving an account of the unity of natural classes. | |
From: J.P. Moreland (Universals [2001], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: This still strikes me as the main problem (rather than issues of language). If universals are not natural, they must be analysed as properties, which break down into causation, which is seen as a human convention. |
4454 | The One-In-Many view says universals have abstract existence, but exist in particulars [Moreland] |
Full Idea: Another version of realism says is One-In-Many, where the universal is not another particular, but is literally in the instances. The universal is an abstract entity, in the instances by means of a primitive non-spatiotemporal tie of predication. | |
From: J.P. Moreland (Universals [2001], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: This sounds like Aristotle (and is Loux's view of properties and relations). If they are abstract, why must they be confined to particulars? |
4468 | How could 'being even', or 'being a father', or a musical interval, exist naturally in space? [Moreland] |
Full Idea: Many properties (being even) and relations (musical intervals, being a father) are such that it is not clear what it would mean to take them as natural things existing in space. | |
From: J.P. Moreland (Universals [2001], Ch.4) | |
A reaction: 'Being even' certainly seems to be a property, and it is a struggle to see how it could exist in space, unless it is a set of actual or potential brain states. |
4452 | Maybe universals are real, if properties themselves have properties, and relate to other properties [Moreland] |
Full Idea: Realism about universals is supported by the phenomenon of abstract reference - that is the fact that properties themselves have properties ('red is a colour'), and stand in relation to other properties ('red is more like orange than like blue'). | |
From: J.P. Moreland (Universals [2001], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: While a property may be an obviously natural feature, properties of properties seem more likely to be the produce of human perception and convention. It is a good argument, though. |
4467 | A naturalist and realist about universals is forced to say redness can be both moving and stationary [Moreland] |
Full Idea: If a property is held to be at the location of the particular, then if there are two objects having the same property, and one object is stationary and the other is moving, the realist is forced to say that the universal is both moving and at rest. | |
From: J.P. Moreland (Universals [2001], Ch.4) | |
A reaction: The target of this comment is D.M.Armstrong. The example nicely illustrates the problem of trying to combine science and metaphysics. It pushes you back to Platonism, but that seems wrong too… |
4469 | There are spatial facts about red particulars, but not about redness itself [Moreland] |
Full Idea: When one attends to something existing in space, one attends to an instance of redness, not to redness itself (which is a colour, which resembles orange). The facts about red itself are not spatial facts, but are traditionally seen as a priori synthetic. | |
From: J.P. Moreland (Universals [2001], Ch.4) | |
A reaction: This is the fact that properties can themselves have properties (and so on?), which seems to take us further and further from the natural world. |
4472 | Redness is independent of red things, can do without them, has its own properties, and has identity [Moreland] |
Full Idea: Four arguments for Platonism: 1) there are truths about redness (it's a colour) even if nothing red exists, 2) redness does not depend on particulars, 3) most universals are at some time not exemplified, 4) universals satisfy the criteria of existence. | |
From: J.P. Moreland (Universals [2001], Ch.6) | |
A reaction: This adds up to quite a good case, particularly the point that things can be said about redness which are independent of any particular, but the relationships between concepts and the brain seems at the heart of the problem. |
4459 | Moderate nominalism attempts to embrace the existence of properties while avoiding universals [Moreland] |
Full Idea: Moderate nominalism attempts to embrace the existence of properties while avoiding universals. | |
From: J.P. Moreland (Universals [2001], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: Clearly there is going to be quite a struggle to make sense of 'exists' here (Russell tries 'subsists). Presumably each property must be a particular? |
4458 | Unlike Class Nominalism, Resemblance Nominalism can distinguish natural from unnatural classes [Moreland] |
Full Idea: Resemblance Nominalism is clearly superior to Class Nominalism, since the former offers a clear ground for distinguishing between natural and unnatural classes. | |
From: J.P. Moreland (Universals [2001], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: Important. It seems evident to me that there are natural classes, and the only ground for this claim would be either the resemblance or the identity of properties. |
4457 | There can be predicates with no property, and there are properties with no predicate [Moreland] |
Full Idea: Linguistic predicates are neither sufficient nor necessary for specifying a property. Predicates can be contrived which express no property, properties are far more numerous than linguistic predicates, and properties are what make predicates apply. | |
From: J.P. Moreland (Universals [2001], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: This seems to me conclusive, and is a crucial argument against anyone who thinks that our metaphysics can simply be inferred from our language. |
4471 | We should abandon the concept of a property since (unlike sets) their identity conditions are unclear [Moreland] |
Full Idea: Some argue that compared to sets, the identity conditions for properties are obscure, and so properties, including realist depictions of them, should be rejected. | |
From: J.P. Moreland (Universals [2001], Ch.6) | |
A reaction: I have never thought that difficulty in precisely identifying something was a good reason for denying its existence. Consider low morale in a work force. 2nd thoughts: I like this! |
14193 | 'Substance theorists' take modal properties as primitive, without structure, just falling under a sortal [Paul,LA] |
Full Idea: Some deep essentialists resist the need to explain the structure under de re modal properties, taking them as primitive. One version (which we can call 'substance theory') takes them to fall under a sortal concept, with no further explanation. | |
From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], §1) | |
A reaction: A very helpful identification of what Wiggins stands for, and why I disagree with him. The whole point of essences is to provide a notion that fits in with sciences, which means they must have an explanatory role, which needs structures. |
14195 | If an object's sort determines its properties, we need to ask what determines its sort [Paul,LA] |
Full Idea: If the substance essentialist holds that the sort an object belongs to determines its de re modal properties (rather than the other way round), then he needs to give an (ontological, not conceptual) explanation of what determines an object's sort. | |
From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], §1) | |
A reaction: See Idea 14193 for 'substance essentialism'. I find it quite incredible that anyone could think that a thing's sort could determine its properties, rather than the other way round. Even if sortals are conventional, they are not arbitrary. |
14196 | Substance essentialism says an object is multiple, as falling under various different sortals [Paul,LA] |
Full Idea: The explanation of material constitution given by substance essentialism is that there are multiple objects. A person is essentially human-shaped (falling under the human sort), while their hunk of tissue is accidentally human-shaped (as tissue). | |
From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], §1) | |
A reaction: At this point sortal essentialism begins to look crazy. Persons are dubious examples (with sneaky dualism involved). A bronze statue is essentially harder to dent than a clay one, because of its bronze. If you remake it of clay, it isn't the same statue. |
14198 | Absolutely unrestricted qualitative composition would allow things with incompatible properties [Paul,LA] |
Full Idea: Absolutely unrestricted qualitative composition would imply that objects with incompatible properties and objects such as winged pigs or golden mountains were actual. | |
From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], §5) | |
A reaction: Note that this is 'qualitative' composition, and not composition of parts. The objection seems to rule out unrestricted qualitative composition, since you could hardly combine squareness with roundness. |
14190 | Deep essentialist objects have intrinsic properties that fix their nature; the shallow version makes it contextual [Paul,LA] |
Full Idea: Essentialism says that objects have their properties essentially. 'Deep' essentialists take the (nontrivial) essential properties of an object to determine its nature. 'Shallow' essentialists substitute context-dependent truths for the independent ones. | |
From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], Intro) | |
A reaction: If the deep essence determines a things nature, we should not need to say 'nontrivial'. This is my bete noire, the confusion of essential properties with necessary ones, where necessary properties (or predicates, at least) can indeed be trivial. |
14191 | Deep essentialists say essences constrain how things could change; modal profiles fix natures [Paul,LA] |
Full Idea: The deep essentialist holds that most objects have essential properties such that there are many ways they could not be, or many changes through which they could not persist. Objects' modal profiles characterize their natures. | |
From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], Intro) | |
A reaction: This is the view I like, especially the last bit. If your modal profile doesn't determine your nature, then what does? Think of how you sum up a person at a funeral. Your modal profile is determined by dispositions and powers. |
14192 | Essentialism must deal with charges of arbitrariness, and failure to reduce de re modality [Paul,LA] |
Full Idea: Two objections to deep essentialism are that it falters when faced with a skeptical objection concerning arbitrariness, and the need for a reductive account of de re modality. | |
From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], Intro) | |
A reaction: An immediate response to the second objection might be to say that modal facts about things are not reducible. The charge of arbitrariness (i.e. total arbitrariness, not just a bit of uncertainty) is the main thing a theory of essences must deal with. |
14197 | An object's modal properties don't determine its possibilities [Paul,LA] |
Full Idea: I reject the view that an object's de re modal properties determine its relations to possibilia. | |
From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], §3) | |
A reaction: You'll have to read Paul to see why, but I flat disagree with her on this. The whole point of accepting such properties is to determine the modal profile of the thing, and hence see how it can fit into and behave in the world. |
4476 | Most philosophers think that the identity of indiscernibles is false [Moreland] |
Full Idea: Most philosophers think that the identity of indiscernibles is false. | |
From: J.P. Moreland (Universals [2001], Ch.7) | |
A reaction: This is as opposed to the generally accepted 'indiscernibility of identicals'. 'Discernment' is an epistemological concept, and 'identity' is an ontological concept. |
3105 | Is 'Hesperus = Phosphorus' metaphysically necessary, but not logically or epistemologically necessary? [Segal] |
Full Idea: It is metaphysically necessary that Hesperus is Phosphorus, but not logically necessary, since logical deduction could not reveal its truth, and it is not epistemologically necessary, as the ancient Greeks didn't know the identity. (Natural necessity?) | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 1.6) |
3106 | If claims of metaphysical necessity are based on conceivability, we should be cautious [Segal] |
Full Idea: Since conceivability is the chief method of assessing the claims of metaphysical necessity, I think such claims are incautious. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 1.6) |
14189 | 'Modal realists' believe in many concrete worlds, 'actualists' in just this world, 'ersatzists' in abstract other worlds [Paul,LA] |
Full Idea: A 'modal realist' believes that there are many concrete worlds, while the 'actualist' believes in only one concrete world, the actual world. The 'ersatzist' is an actualist who takes nonactual possible worlds and their contents to be abstracta. | |
From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], Intro) | |
A reaction: My view is something like that modal realism is wrong, and actualism is right, and possible worlds (if they really are that useful) are convenient abstract fictions, constructed (if we have any sense) out of the real possibilities in the actual world. |
3113 | The success and virtue of an explanation do not guarantee its truth [Segal] |
Full Idea: The success and virtue of an explanation do not guarantee its truth. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 2.2) |
4460 | Abstractions are formed by the mind when it concentrates on some, but not all, the features of a thing [Moreland] |
Full Idea: If something is 'abstract' it is got before the mind by an act of abstraction, that is, by concentrating attention on some (but not all) of what is presented. | |
From: J.P. Moreland (Universals [2001], Ch.3) | |
A reaction: Presumably it usually involves picking out the behavioural or causal features, and leaving out the physical features - though I suppose it works for physical properties too… |
3112 | Folk psychology is ridiculously dualist in its assumptions [Segal] |
Full Idea: Commonsense psychology is a powerful explanatory theory, and largely correct, but it seems to be profoundly dualist, and treats minds as immaterial spirits which can transmigrate and exist disembodied. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 2.2) | |
A reaction: Fans of folk psychology tend to focus on central normal experience, but folk psychology also seems to range from quirky to barking mad. A 'premonition' is a widely accepted mental event. |
3108 | If 'water' has narrow content, it refers to both H2O and XYZ [Segal] |
Full Idea: My view is that the concepts of both the Earth person and the Twin Earth person refer to BOTH forms of diamonds or water (H2O and XYZ). | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 1.7) | |
A reaction: Fair enough, though that seems to imply that my current concepts may actually refer to all sorts of items of which I am currently unaware. But that may be so. |
3110 | Humans are made of H2O, so 'twins' aren't actually feasible [Segal] |
Full Idea: Humans are largely made of H2O, so there could be no twin on Twin Earth, and (as Kuhn noted) nothing with a significantly different structure from H2O could be macroscopically very like water (but topaz and citrine will do). | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 2.1) | |
A reaction: A small point, but one that appeals to essentialists like me (see under Natural Theory/Laws of Nature). We can't learn much metaphysics from impossible examples. |
3124 | Externalists can't assume old words refer to modern natural kinds [Segal] |
Full Idea: The question of what a pre-scientific term extends over is extremely difficult for a Putnam-style externalist to answer. …There seems no good reason to assume that they extend over natural kinds ('whale', 'cat', 'water'). | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 5.1) | |
A reaction: The assumption seems to be that they used to extend over descriptions, and now they extend over essences, or expert references. This can't be right. They have never changed, but now contain fewer errors. |
3117 | Concepts can survive a big change in extension [Segal] |
Full Idea: We need to think of concepts as organic entities that can persist through changes of extension. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 3.3) | |
A reaction: This would be 'organic' in the sense of modifying and growing. This is exactly right, and the interesting problem becomes the extreme cases, where an individual stretches a concept a long way. |
3104 | Must we relate to some diamonds to understand them? [Segal] |
Full Idea: Is a relationship with diamonds necessary for having a concept of diamonds? | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 1.4) | |
A reaction: Probably not, given that I have a concept of kryptonite, and that I can invent my own concepts. Suppose I was brought up to believe that diamonds are a myth? |
3103 | Maybe content involves relations to a language community [Segal] |
Full Idea: It has been argued (e.g. by Tyler Burge) that certain relations to other language users are determinants of content. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 1.4) | |
A reaction: Burge's idea (with Wittgenstein behind him) strikes me as plausible (more plausible than water and elms determining the content). Our concepts actually shift during conversations. |
3111 | Externalism can't explain concepts that have no reference [Segal] |
Full Idea: Empty terms and concepts provide the largest problem for the externalist thesis of the world dependence of concepts. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 2.2) | |
A reaction: A speculative concept could then become a reality (e.g. an invention). The solution seems to be to say that there is an internal and an external component to most concepts. |
3109 | If content is external, so are beliefs and desires [Segal] |
Full Idea: If we accept Putnam's externalist conclusion about the meaning of a word, it is a short step to a similar conclusion about the contents of the twins' beliefs, desires and so on. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 2.1) | |
A reaction: This is the key step which has launched a whole new externalist view of the nature of the mind. It is one thing to say that I don't quite know what my words mean, another that I don't know my own beliefs. |
3116 | Maybe experts fix content, not ordinary users [Segal] |
Full Idea: Putnam and Burge claim that there could be two words that a misinformed subject uses to express different concepts, but that express just one concept of the experts. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 3.2) | |
A reaction: This pushes the concept outside the mind of the user, which leaves an ontological problem of what concepts are made of, how you individuate them, and where they are located. |
3121 | If content is narrow, my perfect twin shares my concepts [Segal] |
Full Idea: To say that contents of my belief are narrow is to say that they are intrinsic to me, hence that any perfect twin of mine would have beliefs with the same contents. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 5) | |
A reaction: I personally find this more congenial than externalism. If my twin and I studied chemistry, we would reach identical conclusions about water, as long as we remained perfect twins. |
3118 | If thoughts ARE causal, we can't explain how they cause things [Segal] |
Full Idea: If we identify a psychological property with its causal role then we lose the obvious explanation of why the event has the causal role that it has. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 4.1) | |
A reaction: This pinpoints very nicely one of the biggest errors in modern philosophy. There are good naturalistic reasons to reduce everything to causal role, but there is a deeper layer. Essences! |
3119 | Even 'mass' cannot be defined in causal terms [Segal] |
Full Idea: We can't define mass in terms of its causal powers because massive objects do different things in different physical systems. …What an object (or concept) with a given property does depends on what it interacts with. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 4.1) | |
A reaction: This leaves an epistemological problem, that we believe in mass, but can only get at it within a particular gravitational or inertial system. Don't give up on ontology at this point. |
4455 | It is always open to a philosopher to claim that some entity or other is unanalysable [Moreland] |
Full Idea: It is always open to a philosopher to claim that some entity or other is unanalysable. | |
From: J.P. Moreland (Universals [2001], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: For example, Davidson on truth. There is an onus to demonstrate why all attempted analyses fail. |
4473 | 'Presentism' is the view that only the present moment exists [Moreland] |
Full Idea: 'Presentism' is the view that only the present moment exists. | |
From: J.P. Moreland (Universals [2001], Ch.6) | |
A reaction: And Greek scepticism doubted even the present, since there is no space between past and future. It is a delightfully vertigo-inducing idea. |