|
17292
|
Avoid 'in virtue of' for grounding, since it might imply a reflexive relation such as identity [Audi,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
We should not use 'in virtue of' where it might express a reflexive relation, such as identity. Since grounding is a relation of determination, and closely linked to the concept of explanation, it is irreflexive and asymmetric.
|
|
From:
Paul Audi (Clarification and Defense of Grounding [2012], 3.2)
|
|
A reaction:
E.g. he says someone isn't a bachelor in virtue of being an unmarried man, since a bachelor just is an unmarried man. I can't disagree. 'Determination' looks like the magic word, even if we don't know how it cashes out.
|
|
17302
|
Ground is irreflexive, asymmetric, transitive, non-monotonic etc. [Audi,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
The logical principles about grounding include irreflexivity, asymmetry, transitivity, non-monotonicity, and so forth.
|
|
From:
Paul Audi (Clarification and Defense of Grounding [2012], 3.8)
|
|
A reaction:
[It can't ground itself, there is no mutual grounding, grounds of grounds ground, and grounding judgements are not fixed]
|
|
17294
|
Grounding is a singular relation between worldly facts [Audi,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
On my view, grounding is a singular relation between facts. ...Facts, on this view, are obtaining states of affairs.
|
|
From:
Paul Audi (Clarification and Defense of Grounding [2012], 3.2)
|
|
A reaction:
He rest this claim on his 'worldly' view of facts, Idea 17293. I seem to be agreeing with him. Note that it is not between types of fact, even if there are such general truths, such as in chemistry.
|
|
17300
|
If grounding relates facts, properties must be included, as well as objects [Audi,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
Taking facts to be the relata of grounding has the interesting consequence that it does not relate ordinary particulars, objects, considered apart from their properties.
|
|
From:
Paul Audi (Clarification and Defense of Grounding [2012], 3.4)
|
|
A reaction:
It will depend on what you mean by properties, and it seems to me that something like 'powers' must be invoked, to get the active character that seems to be involved in grounding.
|
|
17301
|
Reduction is just identity, so the two things are the same fact, so reduction isn't grounding [Audi,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
I deny that when p grounds q, q thereby reduces to p, and I deny that if q reduces to p, then p grounds q. ...On my view, reduction is nothing other than identity, so p is the same fact as q.
|
|
From:
Paul Audi (Clarification and Defense of Grounding [2012], 3.5)
|
|
A reaction:
Very good. I can't disagree with any of it, and it is crystal clear. Philosophical heaven.
|
|
14629
|
If we are told the source of necessity, this seems to be a regress if the source is not already necessary [Blackburn]
|
|
Full Idea:
If we ask why A must be the case, and A is then proved from B, that explains it if B must be so. If the eventual source cites some truth F, then if F just is so, there is strong pressure to feel that the original necessity has not been explained.
|
|
From:
Simon Blackburn (Morals and Modals [1987], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] Ross Cameron wrote a reply to this which I like. I'm fishing for the idea that essence is the source of necessity (as Kit Fine says), but that essence itself is not necessary (as only I say, apparently!).
|
|
14529
|
If something underlies a necessity, is that underlying thing necessary or contingent? [Blackburn, by Hale/Hoffmann,A]
|
|
Full Idea:
Blackburn asks of what theorists propose as underlying the necessity of a proposition, the question whether they themselves are conceived as obtaining of necessity or merely contingently.
|
|
From:
report of Simon Blackburn (Morals and Modals [1987], p.120-1) by Bob Hale/ Aviv Hoffmann - Introduction to 'Modality' 1
|
|
A reaction:
I've seen a reply to this somewhere: I think the thought was that a necessity wouldn't be any less necessary if it had a contingent source, any more than the father of a world champion boxer has to be a world champion boxer.
|
|
17299
|
There are plenty of examples of non-causal explanation [Audi,P]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are a number of explanations where it seems clear that causation is not involved at all: normative grounded in non-normative, disposition grounded in categorical, aesthetic grounded in non-aesthetic, semantic in social and psychological.
|
|
From:
Paul Audi (Clarification and Defense of Grounding [2012], 3.3)
|
|
A reaction:
Apart from dispositions, perhaps, these all seem to be experienced phenomena grounded in the physical world. 'Determination' is the preferred term for non-causal grounding.
|
|
11911
|
Some philosophers always want more from morality; for others, nature is enough [Blackburn]
|
|
Full Idea:
The history of moral theory is largely a history of battles between people who want more (truth, absolutes...) - Plato, Locke, Cudworth, Kant, Nagel - and people content with what we have (nature) - Aristotle, Epicurus, Hobbes, Hume, Stevenson.
|
|
From:
Simon Blackburn (Précis of 'Ruling Passions' [2002], p.133)
|
|
A reaction:
[Thanks to Neil Sinclair for this one] As a devotee of Aristotle, I like this. I'm always impressed, though, by people who go the extra mile in morality, because they are in the grips of purer and loftier ideals than I am. They also turn into monsters!
|
|
2865
|
Critics of prescriptivism observe that it is consistent to accept an ethical verdict but refuse to be bound by it [Blackburn]
|
|
Full Idea:
Critics of prescriptivism have noted the problem that whilst accepting a command seems tantamount to setting oneself to obey it, accepting an ethical verdict is, unfortunately, consistent with refusing to be bound by it.
|
|
From:
Simon Blackburn (Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy [1994], p.300)
|
|
A reaction:
We nearly all of us accept that our behaviour should be better than it actually is, so we accept the oughts but fail to act. Actually 'refusing', though, sounds a bit contradictory.
|
|
23223
|
The word 'respect' ranges from mere non-interference to the highest levels of reverence [Blackburn]
|
|
Full Idea:
The word 'respect' seems to span a spectrum from simply not interfering, passing by on the other side, through admiration, right up to reverence and deference. This makes it uniquely well placed for ideological purposes.
|
|
From:
Simon Blackburn (Religion and Respect [2005], p.2)
|
|
A reaction:
Most people understand the world perfectly well, but only when they fully understand the context. I've taken to distinguishing conditional from unconditional forms of respect. Everyone is entitled to the unconditional form, which has limits.
|