100 ideas
8558 | One system has properties, powers, events, similarity and substance [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: There is a system of internally related concepts containing the notion of a property, the notion of a causal power, the concept of an event, the concept of similarity, and the concept of a persisting substance. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §07) | |
A reaction: A nice example of a modern metaphysical system, one which I find fairly congenial. His notion of events is Kim's, which involves his properties. The persisting substance is the one I am least clear about. |
8559 | Analysis aims at internal relationships, not reduction [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: The goal of philosophical analysis should not be reductive analysis but rather the charting of internal relationships. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §07) | |
A reaction: See Idea 8558 for an attempt by Shoemaker himself. The idea that there has never been a successful analysis has become a truism among pessimistic analytic philosophers. But there are wonderful relationship maps (Quine, Davidson, Lewis, Lowe). |
8594 | People have had good reasons for thinking that the circle has been squared [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: People have had good reasons for thinking that the circle has been squared. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Time Without Change [1969], p.54) | |
A reaction: A lovely concise illustration of the limits of reason. We might distinguish 'rational to us' from 'rational in itself', with only what is true or real aspiring to the latter status. But the latter might be unknowable by us. |
15091 | Restrict 'logical truth' to formal logic, rather than including analytic and metaphysical truths [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: I favour restricting the term 'logical truth' to what logicians would count as such, excluding both analytic truths like 'Bachelors are unmarried' and Kripkean necessities like 'Gold is an element'. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causal and Metaphysical Necessity [1998], I) | |
A reaction: I agree. There is a tendency to splash the phrases 'logical truth' and 'logical necessity around in vague ways. I take them to strictly arise out of the requirements of formal systems of logic. |
22886 | The modern idea of 'limit' allows infinite quantities to have a finite sum [Bardon] |
Full Idea: The concept of a 'limit' allows for an infinite number of finite quantities to add up to a finite sum. | |
From: Adrian Bardon (Brief History of the Philosophy of Time [2013], 1 'Aristotle's') | |
A reaction: This is only if the terms 'converge' on some end point. Limits are convenient fictions. |
22914 | An equally good question would be why there was nothing instead of something [Bardon] |
Full Idea: If there were nothing, then wouldn't it be just as good a question to ask why there is nothing rather than something? There are many ways for there to be something, but only one way for there to be nothing. | |
From: Adrian Bardon (Brief History of the Philosophy of Time [2013], 8 'Confronting') | |
A reaction: [He credits Nozick with the question] I'm not sure whether there being nothing counts as a 'way' of being. If something exists it seems to need a cause, but no cause seems required for the absence of things. Nice, though. |
16050 | The goodness of a picture supervenes on the picture; duplicates must be equally good [Hare] |
Full Idea: Characteristic of value-words is that they name 'supervenient' properties. If we are discussing whether a picture is a good picture, ..and there is another picture that is a replica of it, we cannot say 'they are alike, but one is good and the other not'. | |
From: Richard M. Hare (The Language of Morals [1952], 5.2) | |
A reaction: [compressed] Horgan says this is the passage which introduced 'supervenience' into contemporary discussions. I think the best simple word for it is that the goodness of the picture 'tracks' its physical characteristics. It also depend on them. |
8596 | Inability to measure equality doesn't make all lengths unequal [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: It is not plausible to argue from the fact (if it is one) that it is impossible to verify that two things are exactly equal in length to the conclusion that any two things necessarily differ in length. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Time Without Change [1969], p.58) | |
A reaction: A beautifully simple point against anti-realist or verificationist views of the measurement of length. In any case where we can approach perfect precision, but not quite get there, the anti-realist view looks wildly implausible. |
8597 | We couldn't verify the earth's rotation if everyone simultaneously fell asleep [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: It would be impossible to verify directly that the rotation of the earth would continue if everyone in the universe were sound asleep, yet it is clearly possible that everyone in the universe should at some time be sound asleep. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Time Without Change [1969], p.59) | |
A reaction: Another beautifully simple argument from Shoemaker against anti-realism (cf. Ideas 8595, 8956). This one is nice because it is so obviously possible, given that everyone able to know of the earth's rotation also seems to need sleep. |
15095 | A property's causal features are essential, and only they fix its identity [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: The view I now favour says that the causal features of a property, both forward-looking and backward-looking, are essential to it. And it says that properties having the same causal features are identical. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causal and Metaphysical Necessity [1998], III) | |
A reaction: In this formulation we have essentialism about properties, as well as essentialism about the things which have the properties. |
15097 | I claim that a property has its causal features in all possible worlds [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: The controversial claim of my theory is that the causal features of properties are essential to them - are features that they have in all possible worlds. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causal and Metaphysical Necessity [1998], III) | |
A reaction: One problem is that a property can come in degrees, so what degree of the property is necessary to it? It is better to assign this claim to the fundamental properties (which are best called 'powers'). |
15092 | Formerly I said properties are individuated by essential causal powers and causing instantiation [Shoemaker, by Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: My 1980 paper said properties are individuated by causal features - the contribution they make to the causal powers of things, and also how their instantiation can be caused. Collectively, these causal features are the essence of a property. | |
From: report of Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], I) by Sydney Shoemaker - Causal and Metaphysical Necessity | |
A reaction: The later paper worries about uncertainty over individuation. The view I favour is that 'powers' is a much better term for what is basic, and this allows 'properties' to be the complex notion we use in real life, as innumberable power-combinations. |
8543 | Genuine properties are closely related to genuine changes [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: Our intuitions as to what are, and what are not, genuine properties are closely related to our intuitions as to what are, and what are not, genuine changes. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §02) | |
A reaction: A simple but brilliant insight. Somehow we must hack through the plethora of bogus properties and get to the real ones, cutting nature at the joints. Here we have the principle needed for the task. |
8551 | Properties must be essentially causal if we can know and speak about them [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: Only if some causal theory of properties is true can it be explained how properties are capable of engaging our knowledge, and our language, in the way they do. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §05) | |
A reaction: Exactly. This also the reason why epiphenomenalism doesn't make sense about consciousness (Idea 7379). The fact that something has causal powers doesn't mean that it just IS a causal power. A bomb isn't an explosion. |
8557 | To ascertain genuine properties, examine the object directly [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: There is a plausible way of distinguishing genuine and mere-Cambridge properties. To decide whether an emerald is green the thing to do is to examine it, but a mere-Cambridge property is settled by observations at a remote time and place. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §06) | |
A reaction: Scientific essentialism is beautifully simple! Schoemaker is good at connecting the epistemology to the ontology. If you examined a mirror, you might think it contained reflections. |
15761 | We should abandon the idea that properties are the meanings of predicate expressions [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: I think we should abandon the idea that properties are the meanings of predicate expressions. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §04) | |
A reaction: Right. I have Shoemaker on my side, and he is a distinguished and senior member of the philosophical community. I don't just prefer not to use 'predicate' and 'property' indistinguishably - philosophers should really really give it up! |
15756 | Some truths are not because of a thing's properties, but because of the properties of related things [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: Sometimes a predicate is true of a thing, not because (or only because) of any properties it has, but because something else, perhaps something related to it in certain ways, has certain properties. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §02) | |
A reaction: I'm on mission to prize predicates and properties apart, and the strategy is to focus on what is true of something, given that this may not ascribe a property to the thing. |
15758 | Things have powers in virtue of (which are entailed by) their properties [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: There is a distinction between powers, and the properties in virtue of which things have they powers they have (n8: 'in virtue of' means that there is a lawlike truth, which turns out to be the properties entailing the powers). | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §03) | |
A reaction: To me this is an ontology which rests something very clear (a power) on something very indeterminate (a 'property'). |
8547 | One power can come from different properties; a thing's powers come from its properties [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: It is possible to have the same power (e.g. being poisonous) in virtue of having very different properties. ..So it is in virtue of a thing's properties that the thing has the powers that it has. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §03) | |
A reaction: This strikes me as an accurate and helpful picture. It means that true properties give rise to powers, and categorial or relational or whimsical properties must have their ontological status judged by that standard. |
8549 | Properties are functions producing powers, and powers are functions producing effects [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: Powers are functions from circumstances to causal effects, and properties (on which powers depend) can be thought of as functions from sets of properties to sets of powers. Maybe we should call properties 'second-order powers', as they produce powers. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §04) | |
A reaction: He presents property as both a function, and a component of the function. This is the core picture on which modern scientific essentialism is built. See under Natural Theory|Laws of Nature. |
15094 | I now deny that properties are cluster of powers, and take causal properties as basic [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: I now reject the formulation of the causal theory which says that a property is a cluster of conditional powers. That has a reductionist flavour, which is a cheat. We need properties to explain conditional powers, so properties won't reduce. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causal and Metaphysical Necessity [1998], III) | |
A reaction: [compressed wording] I agree with Mumford and Anjum in preferring his earlier formulation. I think properties are broad messy things, whereas powers can be defined more precisely, and seem to have more stability in nature. |
12678 | Shoemaker says all genuine properties are dispositional [Shoemaker, by Ellis] |
Full Idea: I am against Shoemaker's strong dispositionalism, according to which all genuine properties are dispositional. | |
From: report of Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980]) by Brian Ellis - The Metaphysics of Scientific Realism 3 | |
A reaction: This is because Ellis argues that some properties are categorical, and are needed to underly the active dispositional ones. I think I side with Shoemaker, but this needs more thought. |
8545 | A causal theory of properties focuses on change, not (say) on abstract properties of numbers [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: My account of properties concerns those with respect to which change is possible; it is not intended to apply to such properties of numbers as being even and being prime. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §02) | |
A reaction: You could argue that while these properties may not cause change, they are abstract powers. Being even allows division by 2, and being prime blocks it. I say patterns are the basis, and dividing groups of physical objects is involved. |
15757 | 'Square', 'round' and 'made of copper' show that not all properties are dispositional [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: Surely we make a distinction beween dispositional and nondispositional properties, and can mention paradigms of both sorts. ....It seems plain that predicates like 'square', 'round' and 'made of copper' are not dispositional. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §03) | |
A reaction: It might be possible to account for squareness and roundness in dispositional ways, and it is certainly plausible to say that 'made of copper' is not a property (even when it is a true predicate). |
15759 | The identity of a property concerns its causal powers [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: What makes a property the property it is, what determines its identity, is its potential for contributing to the causal powers of the things that have it. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §04) | |
A reaction: Does this mean that the 'potential' to act is the essence of the property, or is a property of the property, or is wholly identical with the property? Or is this just epistemological - whatever individuates the property for observers? |
15760 | Properties are clusters of conditional powers [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: A thing has a 'conditional power' when it has a power conditionally upon the possession of certain properties. ...We can then express my view by saying that properties are clusters of conditional powers. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §04) | |
A reaction: His example is a knife-shaped thing, which conditionally cuts wood if it is made of steel. Shoemaker rejected this in 1998. Mumford/Anjum prefer the earlier view. Which is fundamental? Powers are simple and primitive. Properties are complex. |
15762 | Could properties change without the powers changing, or powers change without the properties changing? [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: Could a thing undergo radical change with respect to its properties without undergoing any change in its causal powers, or undergo radical change in its causal powers without undergoing any change in the properties that underlie these powers? | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §05) | |
A reaction: I don't accept properties underlying powers, but these two questions at least force us to see how closely the two are linked. |
8552 | If properties are separated from causal powers, this invites total elimination [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: The disassociation of property identity from causal potentiality is an invitation to eliminate reference to properties from our explanatory hypotheses altogether. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §05) | |
A reaction: Just as epiphenomenalism about consciousness is a step towards eliminativism. This seems to describe Quine's reaction to Goodman, in moving from predicate nominalism to elimination of properties. I agree with Shoemaker. |
4040 | The notions of property and of causal power are parts of a single system of related concepts [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: The notion of a property and the notion of a causal power belong to a system of internally related concepts, no one of which can be explicated without the use of the other. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §07) | |
A reaction: Sounds good. It is hard to conceive of a property which has no causal powers, or a causal power that doesn't arise from a property. |
15765 | Actually, properties are individuated by causes as well as effects [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: I should probably modify my view, and say that properties are individuated by their possible causes as well as by their possible effects. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §11) | |
A reaction: (This is in an afterword responding to criticism by Richard Boyd) He doesn't use the word 'individuate' in the essay. That term always strikes me as smacking too much of epistemology, and not enough of ontology. Who cares how you individuate something? |
14534 | Shoemaker moved from properties as powers to properties bestowing powers [Shoemaker, by Mumford/Anjum] |
Full Idea: Shoemaker ventured the theory in 1980 that properties just are clusters of powers, but he has subsequently abandoned this, and now thinks properties bestow their bearers with causal powers. | |
From: report of Sydney Shoemaker (Self, Body and Coincidence [1999], p.297) by S.Mumford/R.Lill Anjum - Getting Causes from Powers 1.1 | |
A reaction: Like Mumford and Anjum, I prefer the earlier theory. I think taking powers as basic is the only story that really makes sense. A power is intrinsic and primitive, whereas properties are complex, messy, partly subjective, and higher level. |
8548 | Dispositional predicates ascribe powers, and the rest ascribe properties [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: By and large, dispositional predicates ascribe powers while nondispositional monadic predicates ascribe properties that are not powers in the same sense. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §03) | |
A reaction: The powers are where the properties come into contact with the rest of the world, so you would expect dispositions to be found at that level, rather than at the deeper level of properties. Sounds good to me. |
9485 | Universals concern how things are, and how they could be [Shoemaker, by Bird] |
Full Idea: Shoemaker contends that universals concern the way things could be, not merely the way any things actually are. | |
From: report of Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980]) by Alexander Bird - Nature's Metaphysics 3.2.2 | |
A reaction: If you want to retain universals within a scientific essentialist view (and I would rather not), then this seems like the only way to go. |
8550 | Triangular and trilateral are coextensive, but different concepts; but powers and properties are the same [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: It is natural to say that 'being triangular' and 'being trilateral', though necessarily coextensive, are different properties. But what are distinct are the concepts and meanings. If properties are not meanings of predicates, these are identical. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §04) | |
A reaction: A good test example. Being renate (kidney) and being cordate (heart) are different, because being cordate produces a thumping noise. Shoemaker's example is pretty much Phosphorus/Hesperus. |
8555 | There is no subset of properties which guarantee a thing's identity [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: There is, putting aside historical properties and 'identity properties', no subset of the properties of a thing which constitutes an individual essence, so that having those properties is necessary and sufficient for being that particular thing. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §05) | |
A reaction: He asserts this rather dogmatically. If he says a thing can lose its essence, I agree, but it seems to me that there must be a group of features which will guarantee that (if they are present) it has that identity. |
15099 | If something is possible, but not nomologically possible, we need metaphysical possibility [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: If it is possible that there could be possible states of affairs that are not nomologically possible, don't we therefore need a notion of metaphysical possibility that outruns nomological possibility? | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causal and Metaphysical Necessity [1998], VI) | |
A reaction: Shoemaker rejects this possibility (p.425). I sympathise. So there is 'natural' possibility (my preferred term), which is anything which stuff, if it exists, could do, and 'logical' possibility, which is anything that doesn't lead to contradiction. |
8554 | Possible difference across worlds depends on difference across time in the actual world [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: The ways in which a given thing can be different in different possible worlds depend on the ways in which such a thing can be different at different times in the actual world. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §05) | |
A reaction: Where change in a thing is possible across time in the actual world seems to require a combination of experiment and imagination. Unimaginability does not entail necessity, but it may be the best guide we have got. |
15101 | Once you give up necessity as a priori, causal necessity becomes the main type of necessity [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: Once the obstacle of the deeply rooted conviction that necessary truths should be knowable a priori is removed, ...causal necessity is (pretheoretically) the very paradigm of necessity, in ordinary usage and in dictionaries. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causal and Metaphysical Necessity [1998], VII) | |
A reaction: The a priori route seems to lead to logical necessity, just by doing a priori logic, and also to metaphysical necessity, by some sort of intuitive vision. This is a powerful idea of Shoemaker's (implied, of course, in Kripke). |
15764 | 'Conceivable' is either not-provably-false, or compatible with what we know? [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: We could use 'conceivable' to say it is not provable that it is not the case, or we could use it to say that it is compatible with what we know. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §10) | |
A reaction: Rather significant, since the first one would seem to allow in a great deal that the second one would rule out. Any disproof of some natural possibility founders on the remark that 'you never know'. |
15098 | Empirical evidence shows that imagining a phenomenon can show it is possible [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: We have abundant empirical evidence that when we can imagine some phenomenal situation, e.g., imagine things appearing certain ways, such a situation could actually exist. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causal and Metaphysical Necessity [1998], VI) | |
A reaction: There seem to be good reasons for holding the opposite view too. We can imagine gold appearing to be all sorts of colours, but that doesn't make it possible. What does empirical evidence really tell us here? |
15100 | Imagination reveals conceptual possibility, where descriptions avoid contradiction or incoherence [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: Imaginability can give us access to conceptual possibility, when we come to believe situations to be conceptually possible by reflecting on their descriptions and seeing no contradiction or incoherence. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causal and Metaphysical Necessity [1998], VI) | |
A reaction: If take the absence of contradiction to indicate 'logical' possibility, but the absence of incoherence is more interesting, even if it is a bit vague. He is talking of 'situations', which I take to be features of reality. A priori synthetic? |
8562 | It is possible to conceive what is not possible [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: It is possible to conceive what is not possible. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §10) | |
A reaction: The point here is that, while we cannot clearly conceive the impossible in a world like mathematics, we can conceive of impossible perceptions in the physical world, such as a bonfire burning under water. |
5691 | The adverbial account of sensation says not 'see a red image' but be 'appeared to redly' [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: Some who reject the act-object conception of sensation favour an 'adverbial' account, where (instead of the act of 'seeing a red image') it is better to speak of 'being appeared to redly'. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Introspection [1994], p.398) | |
A reaction: The point is that you couldn't perceive without a colour (or travel without a speed), so the qualifying adverb is intrinsic to the process, not a separate object. The adverbial theory will imply a fairly minimal account of universals. |
8593 | Maybe billions of changeless years have elapsed since my last meal [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: If it is possible for there to be changeless intervals of time, then it may seem compatible with my total experience that any number of such intervals, each of them lasting billions of years, should have elapsed since I ate my last meal. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Time Without Change [1969], p.52) | |
A reaction: Compare Idea 2792. A nice new sceptical thought! Shoemaker's paper is devoted, successfully I think, to proving that there can indeed by changless intervals of time. |
8556 | Grueness is not, unlike green and blue, associated with causal potential [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: Grueness, as defined by Goodman, is not associated in the way greenness and blueness are with causal potentialities. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §06) | |
A reaction: Expressed rather more simply in Idea 7296. 'Grue' is a characteristic production of a predicate nominalist (i.e. Goodman), and that theory is just wrong. The account of properties must mesh with the account of induction. |
15096 | 'Grue' only has causal features because of its relation to green [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: Perhaps 'grue' has causal features, but only derivatively, in virtue of its relation to green. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causal and Metaphysical Necessity [1998], III) | |
A reaction: I take grue to be a behaviour, and not a property at all. The problem only arises because the notion of a 'property' became too lax. Presumably Shoemaker should also mention blue in his account. |
5687 | For true introspection, must we be aware that we are aware of our mental events? [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: Some writers distinguish introspection from a pre-introspective awareness of mental phenomena, saying one is not properly introspecting unless one is not only aware of the phenomena, but aware that one is aware of them. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Introspection [1994], p.395) | |
A reaction: The test question might be what we think animals do. I think I agree with the 'writers'. You are either just aware of the contents or qualia or images of thought, which is not introspection, or you become introspectively aware that you are having them. |
5688 | Empirical foundationalism says basic knowledge is self-intimating, and incorrigible or infallible [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: Foundationalist epistemology takes all empirical knowledge to be grounded in the introspective knowledge each mind has of its own states, …holding that introspective judgements are 'incorrigible' or 'infallible', and mental states are 'self-intimating'. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Introspection [1994], p.396) | |
A reaction: Descartes' foundationalist Cogito also seems to be based on introspection, making introspection the essence of all foundationalism. The standard modern view is that introspective states are incorrigible, but not infallible. |
1389 | If memory is the sole criterion of identity, we ought to use it for other people too [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: If memory were the sole criterion of personal identity it would have to be the sole criterion that we use in making identity statements about persons other than ourselves. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Personal Identity and Memory [1959], §4) | |
A reaction: From Locke's point of view, he is much less certain about the continued identity of other people, because he allows the possibility of transference of minds. Even we might reject physical identity, if a person had suffered a severe trauma. |
1390 | Bodily identity is one criterion and memory another, for personal identity [Shoemaker, by PG] |
Full Idea: Bodily identity must be one of the criteria for personal identity (to establish that a rememberer was present at a past event), but memory itself must also be accepted as one of the criteria. | |
From: report of Sydney Shoemaker (Personal Identity and Memory [1959], §5) by PG - Db (ideas) | |
A reaction: This concerns the epistemology of personal identity, not the ontology. Someone with total amnesia would probably accept a driving licence as a criterion. Is personal identity a mental state, or a precondition which makes mental states possible? |
2705 | How can intuitionists distinguish universal convictions from local cultural ones? [Hare] |
Full Idea: There are convictions which are common to most societies; but there are others which are not, and no way is given by intuitionists of telling which are the authoritative data. | |
From: Richard M. Hare (Universal Prescriptivism [1991], p.454) | |
A reaction: It seems unfair on intuitionists to say they haven't given a way to evaluate such things, given that they have offered intuition. The issue is what exactly they mean by 'intuition'. |
2712 | You can't use intuitions to decide which intuitions you should cultivate [Hare] |
Full Idea: If it comes to deciding what intuitions and dispositions to cultivate, we cannot rely on the intuitions themselves, as intuitionists do. | |
From: Richard M. Hare (Universal Prescriptivism [1991], p.461) | |
A reaction: Makes intuitionists sound a bit dim. Surely Hume identifies dispositions (such as benevolence) which should be cultivated, because they self-evidently improve social life? |
2706 | Emotivists mistakenly think all disagreements are about facts, and so there are no moral reasons [Hare] |
Full Idea: Emotivists concluded too hastily that because naturalism and intuitionism are false, you cannot reason about moral questions, because they assumed that the only questions you can reason about are factual ones. | |
From: Richard M. Hare (Universal Prescriptivism [1991], p.455) | |
A reaction: Personally I have a naturalistic view of ethics (based on successful functioning, as indicated by Aristotle), so not my prob. Why can't we reason about expressive emotions? We reason about art. |
2708 | An 'ought' statement implies universal application [Hare] |
Full Idea: In any 'ought' statement there is implicit a principle which says that the statement applies to all precisely similar situations. | |
From: Richard M. Hare (Universal Prescriptivism [1991], p.456) | |
A reaction: No two situations can ever be 'precisely' similar. Indeed, 'precisely similar' may be an oxymoron (at least for situations). Kantians presumably like this idea. |
2704 | If morality is just a natural or intuitive description, that leads to relativism [Hare] |
Full Idea: Non-descriptivists (e.g. prescriptivists) reject descriptivism in its naturalist or intuitionist form, because they are both destined to collapse into relativism. | |
From: Richard M. Hare (Universal Prescriptivism [1991], p.453) | |
A reaction: I'm not clear from this why prescriptism would not also turn out to be relativist, if it includes evaluations along with facts. |
2855 | In primary evaluative words like 'ought' prescription is constant but description can vary [Hare, by Hooker,B] |
Full Idea: Hare says words are secondarily evaluative (e.g. 'soft-hearted') if prescriptive meaning varies but description is constant; primarily evaluative words ('good', 'right', 'ought') are the opposite, with the descriptive content varying. | |
From: report of Richard M. Hare (The Language of Morals [1952]) by Brad W. Hooker - Prescriptivism p.640 | |
A reaction: I would have thought that the prescriptive meaning of the evaluative word could at least vary in strength. You really, really ought to do that. |
22331 | Moral statements are imperatives rather than the avowals of emotion - but universalisable [Hare, by Glock] |
Full Idea: According to Hare's universal prescriptivism, moral statements are closer to imperatives than to avowals of emotion; their purpose is to guide action. But unlike imeperatives they are universalisable. | |
From: report of Richard M. Hare (Freedom and Reason [1963]) by Hans-Johann Glock - What is Analytic Philosophy? 2.9 | |
A reaction: Why isn't 'everyone ought to support West Ham' a moral judgement? |
22484 | Universalised prescriptivism could be seen as implying utilitarianism [Hare, by Foot] |
Full Idea: Hare has suggested that a fairly tight form of utilitarianism can be obtained from universalised prescriptivism. | |
From: report of Richard M. Hare (Freedom and Reason [1963]) by Philippa Foot - Does Moral Subjectivism Rest on a Mistake? p.191 | |
A reaction: All the benefits of Bentham, Kant and Hume, in one neat package! Since I take all three of them to be wrong about ethics, that counts against this idea. |
4125 | Hare says I acquire an agglomeration of preferences by role-reversal, leading to utilitarianism [Hare, by Williams,B] |
Full Idea: In Hare's theory I apply a "role-reversal test", and then acquire an actual agglomeration of preferences that apply to the hypothetical situation. The result is utilitarianism. | |
From: report of Richard M. Hare (Moral Thinking: Its Levels,Method and Point [1981]) by Bernard Williams - Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy Ch.5 | |
A reaction: It hits that traditional stumbling block, of why I should care about the preferences of others. Pure reason and empathy are the options (Kant or Hume). I may, however, lack both. |
4126 | If we have to want the preferences of the many, we have to abandon our own deeply-held views [Williams,B on Hare] |
Full Idea: Hare's version of utilitarianism requires an agent to abandon any deeply held principle or conviction if a large enough aggregate of contrary preferences, of whatever kind, favours a contrary action. | |
From: comment on Richard M. Hare (Moral Thinking: Its Levels,Method and Point [1981]) by Bernard Williams - Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy Ch.5 | |
A reaction: This nicely attacks any impersonal moral theory, whether it is based on reason or preferences. But where did my personal ideals come from? |
4127 | If morality is to be built on identification with the preferences of others, I must agree with their errors [Williams,B on Hare] |
Full Idea: If there is to be total identification with others, then if another's preferences are mistaken, the preferences I imagine myself into are equally mistaken, and if 'identification' is the point, they should remain mistaken. | |
From: comment on Richard M. Hare (Moral Thinking: Its Levels,Method and Point [1981]) by Bernard Williams - Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy Ch.5 | |
A reaction: Yes. The core of morality must be judgement. Robots can implement universal utilitarian rules, but they could end up promoting persecutions of minorities. |
22483 | A judgement is presciptive if we expect it to be acted on [Hare] |
Full Idea: We say something prescriptive if and only if, for some act A, some situation S and some person R, if P were to assent (orally) to what we say, and not, in S, do A, he logically must be assenting insincerely. | |
From: Richard M. Hare (Moral Thinking: Its Levels,Method and Point [1981], p.21), quoted by Philippa Foot - Does Moral Subjectivism Rest on a Mistake? p.190 | |
A reaction: Foot offers this as Hare's most explicit definition. The use of algebra strikes me as ludicrous. In logic letters have the virtue of not shifting their meaning during an argument, but that is not required here. |
2703 | Descriptivism say ethical meaning is just truth-conditions; prescriptivism adds an evaluation [Hare] |
Full Idea: Ethical descriptivism is the view that ethical sentence-meaning is wholly determined by truth-conditions. …Prescriptivists think there is a further element of meaning, which expresses prescriptions or evaluations or attitudes which we assent to. | |
From: Richard M. Hare (Universal Prescriptivism [1991], p.452) | |
A reaction: Not sure I understand either of these. If all meaning consists of truth-conditions, that will apply to ethics. If meaning includes evaluations, that will apply to non-ethics. |
2707 | If there can be contradictory prescriptions, then reasoning must be involved [Hare] |
Full Idea: Prescriptivists claim that there are rules of reasoning which govern non-descriptive as well as descriptive speech acts. The standard example is possible logical inconsistency between contradictory prescriptions. | |
From: Richard M. Hare (Universal Prescriptivism [1991], p.455) | |
A reaction: The example doesn't seem very good. Inconsistency can appear in any area of thought, but that isn't enough to infer full 'rules of reasoning'. I could desire two incompatible crazy things. |
2709 | Prescriptivism sees 'ought' statements as imperatives which are universalisable [Hare] |
Full Idea: Universal prescriptivists hold that 'ought'-judgements are prescriptive like plain imperatives, but differ from them in being universalisable. | |
From: Richard M. Hare (Universal Prescriptivism [1991], p.457) | |
A reaction: Sounds a bit tautological. Which comes first, the normativity or the universalisability? |
2711 | Prescriptivism implies a commitment, but descriptivism doesn't [Hare] |
Full Idea: Prescriptivists hold that moral judgements commit the speaker to motivations and actions, but non-moral facts by themselves do not do this. | |
From: Richard M. Hare (Universal Prescriptivism [1991], p.459) | |
A reaction: Surely hunger motivates to action? I suppose the key word is 'commit'. But lazy people are allowed to make moral judgements. |
4360 | By far the easiest way of seeming upright is to be upright [Hare] |
Full Idea: By far the easiest way of seeming upright is to be upright. | |
From: Richard M. Hare (Moral Thinking: Its Levels,Method and Point [1981], Ch.11) | |
A reaction: Yes. This is the route which takes us from enlightened self-interest to a vision of true morality. Virtue is found to be its own reward, thought that is not how we became virtuous to begin with. |
2710 | Moral judgements must invoke some sort of principle [Hare] |
Full Idea: To make moral judgements is implicitly to invoke some principle, however specific. | |
From: Richard M. Hare (Universal Prescriptivism [1991], p.458) |
6449 | The categorical imperative leads to utilitarianism [Hare, by Nagel] |
Full Idea: Hare has proposed that utilitarianism is the ultimate standard to which we are led by the categorical imperative. | |
From: report of Richard M. Hare (Freedom and Reason [1963], p.123-4) by Thomas Nagel - Equality and Partiality | |
A reaction: It seems to me better to say that Kant starts (unwittingly) from something like utilitarianism, that is, an assumption that human happiness and welfare have some sort of intrinsic value that cannot be demonstrated. Otherwise evil can be universalised. |
8542 | If causality is between events, there must be reference to the properties involved [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: Any account of causality as a relation between events should involve, in a central way, reference to the properties of the constituent objects of the events. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §01) | |
A reaction: This remark, with which I wholeheartedly agree, is aimed at Davidson, who seems to think you need know no more about an event than the way in which someone chooses to describe it. Metaphysics must dig deeper, even if science can't. |
8598 | If things turn red for an hour and then explode, we wouldn't say the redness was the cause [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: If we found that things always explode after having been red for an hour, we would never suppose that what causes the explosion is simply a thing's having been red for an hour. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Time Without Change [1969], p.63) | |
A reaction: Shoemaker points out that even Hume says that cause and effect must be 'contiguous', but it clearly means that a simplistic regularity analysis of causation won't work. |
22902 | Why does an effect require a prior event if the prior event isn't a cause? [Bardon] |
Full Idea: To say that a reaction requires the earlier presence of an action just raises anew the question of why it is 'required' if it isn't bring about the reaction. | |
From: Adrian Bardon (Brief History of the Philosophy of Time [2013], 4 'Pervasive') | |
A reaction: This is another example of my demand that empiricists don't just describe and report conjunctions and patterns, but make some effort to explain them. |
15093 | We might say laws are necessary by combining causal properties with Armstrong-Dretske-Tooley laws [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: One way to get the conclusion that laws are necessary is to combine my view of properties with the view of Armstrong, Dretske and Tooley, that laws are, or assert, relations between properties. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causal and Metaphysical Necessity [1998], I) | |
A reaction: This is interesting, because Armstrong in particular wants the necessity to arise from relations between properties as universals, but if we define properties causally, and make them necessary, we might get the same result without universals. |
8560 | If causal laws describe causal potentialities, the same laws govern properties in all possible worlds [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: To the extent that causal laws can be viewed as propositions describing the causal potentialities of properties, it is impossible that the same properties should be governed by different causal laws in different possible worlds. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §08) | |
A reaction: [He has just asserted that causal potentialities are essential to properties] This is the dramatic basic claim of scientific essentialism, which grows out of Shoemaker's causal account of properties. Note that the laws are just descriptions. |
15763 | If properties are causal, then causal necessity is a species of logical necessity [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: My theory of properties as causal appears to have the consequence that causal laws are logically necessary, and that causal necessity is just a species of logical necessity. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §09) | |
A reaction: Where he writes 'logical' necessity I would claim that he really means 'metaphysical' necessity. The point, I take it, is that given the existence of those properties, certain causal efforts must always follow from them. I agree. |
8561 | If a world has different causal laws, it must have different properties [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: If there are worlds in which the causal laws are different from those that prevail in this world, ..then the properties will have to be different as well. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §09) | |
A reaction: The next question is whether the same stuff (e.g. gold or water) could have different properties, and I take the the scientific essentialism answer to be 'no'. So the actual stuff (substances?) would have to be different. |
8553 | It looks as if the immutability of the powers of a property imply essentiality [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: There is a prima facie case for saying that the immutability of the causal potentialities of a property implies their essentiality. ...If they cannot vary across time, they also cannot vary across possible worlds. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §05) | |
A reaction: This is only the beginning of scientific essentialism, but one of the targets is to save the phenomena. It is also involves unimaginability (of different powers from a given property) implying necessity. |
22905 | Becoming disordered is much easier for a system than becoming ordered [Bardon] |
Full Idea: Systems move to a higher state of entropy …because there are very many more ways for a system to be disordered than for it to be ordered. …We can also say that they tend to move from a non-equilibrium state to an equilibrium state. | |
From: Adrian Bardon (Brief History of the Philosophy of Time [2013], 5 'Thermodynamic') | |
A reaction: Is it actually about order, or is it just that energy radiates, and thus disperses? |
22913 | The universe expands, so space-time is enlarging [Bardon] |
Full Idea: More and more space-time is literally being created from nothing all the time as the universe expands. | |
From: Adrian Bardon (Brief History of the Philosophy of Time [2013], 8 'Realism') | |
A reaction: [He cites Paul Davies for this] Is the universe acquiring more space, or is the given space being stretched? Acquiring more time makes no sense, so what is more space-time? |
22889 | We should treat time as adverbial, so we don't experience time, we experience things temporally [Bardon, by Bardon] |
Full Idea: Kant says that instead of focusing on the nouns 'time' and 'space', it would be more on target to focus on the adverbial applications of the concepts - that we don't experience things in time and space so much as experience them temporally and spatially. | |
From: report of Adrian Bardon (Brief History of the Philosophy of Time [2013]) by Adrian Bardon - Brief History of the Philosophy of Time 2 'Kantian' | |
A reaction: Put like that, Kant's approach has some plausibility, given that we don't actually experience space and time as entities. To jump from that to idealism seems daft. Does every adverb imply idealism about what it specifies? |
4226 | If three regions 'freeze' every three, four and five years, after sixty years everything stops for a year [Shoemaker, by Lowe] |
Full Idea: If region A has a year's 'freeze' every three years, region B does it every four years, and C every five years, every sixty years they would all freeze, and there would be no witnesses. The simplest hypothesis is that a year passes with no events. | |
From: report of Sydney Shoemaker (Time Without Change [1969]) by E.J. Lowe - A Survey of Metaphysics p.247 | |
A reaction: Lovely argument. I definitely vote for there being a year of time with no events, even though it contradicats Einstein and the rest. As usual, we should be doing ontology, but get lured into epistemology. |
8595 | If three regions freeze every 3rd, 4th and 5th year, they all freeze together every 60 years [Shoemaker] |
Full Idea: If region A locally freezes (for one year, observed by the other two regions) every third year, and region B every fourth year, and region B every fifth year, ...then every sixtieth year there will be a total freeze lasting one year. | |
From: Sydney Shoemaker (Time Without Change [1969], p.56) | |
A reaction: One of the most brilliant thought experiments in modern philosophy!!! He demonstrates that there can be time without change, but also that we must rely on best explanation, and that there is more to ontology than epistemology (let alone semantics). |
22900 | How can we question the passage of time, if the question takes time to ask? [Bardon] |
Full Idea: Even questioning the passage of time may be self-defeating: can any question be meaningfully asked or understood without presuming the passage of time from the inception of the question to its conclusion? | |
From: Adrian Bardon (Brief History of the Philosophy of Time [2013], 4 'Pervasive') | |
A reaction: [He cites P.J. Zwart for this] We can at least, in B-series style, specify the starting and finishing times of the question, without talk of its passage. Nice point, though. |
22898 | What is time's passage relative to, and how fast does it pass? [Bardon] |
Full Idea: If time is passing, then relative to what? How could time pass with respect to itself? Further, if time passes, at what rate does it pass? | |
From: Adrian Bardon (Brief History of the Philosophy of Time [2013], 4 'Pervasive') | |
A reaction: I remember some writer grasping the nettle, and saying that time passes at one second per second. Compare travelling at one metre per metre. |
22897 | The A-series says a past event is becoming more past, but how can it do that? [Bardon] |
Full Idea: In the dynamic theory of time the Battle of Waterloo is become more past. If we insist on the A-series properties, this seems inevitable. But how can a past event be changing now? | |
From: Adrian Bardon (Brief History of the Philosophy of Time [2013], 4 'Reasons') | |
A reaction: [He cites Ulrich Meyer for this] We don't worry about an object changing its position when it is swept down a river. The location of the Battle of Waterloo relative to 'now' is not a property of the battle. That is a 'Cambridge' property. |
22896 | The B-series is realist about time, but idealist about its passage [Bardon] |
Full Idea: The B-series theorist is a realist about time but an idealist about the passage of time. This is the Static Theory of time. | |
From: Adrian Bardon (Brief History of the Philosophy of Time [2013], 4 'Reasons') | |
A reaction: Note the both A and B are realists about time, and thus deny both the relationist and the idealist view. |
22901 | The B-series needs a revised view of causes, laws and explanations [Bardon] |
Full Idea: If we accept the static (B-series) view, we have to reevaluate how we think about causation, natural laws, and scientific explanation. | |
From: Adrian Bardon (Brief History of the Philosophy of Time [2013], 4 'Pervasive') | |
A reaction: Any scientific account which refers to events seems to imply a dynamic view of time. Lots of scientists and philosophers endorse the static view of time, but then fail to pursue its implications. |
22903 | The B-series adds directionality when it accepts 'earlier' and 'later' [Bardon] |
Full Idea: The static (B-series) theory, by embracing the relational temporal properties 'earlier' and 'later', adds a directional ordering to the block of events. | |
From: Adrian Bardon (Brief History of the Philosophy of Time [2013], 5 'Time's') | |
A reaction: I'm not clear whether this addition to the B-series picture is optional or obligatory. It is important that it seems to be a bolt-on feature, not immediately implied by the timeless series. What would Einstein say? |
22910 | To define time's arrow by causation, we need a timeless definition of causation [Bardon] |
Full Idea: The problem for the causal analysis of temporal asymmetry is to come up with a definition of causation that does not itself rely on the concept of temporal asymmetry. | |
From: Adrian Bardon (Brief History of the Philosophy of Time [2013], 5 'Causal') | |
A reaction: This is the point at which my soul cries out 'time is a primitive concept!' Leibniz want to use dependency to define time's arrow, but how do you specify dependency if you don't know which one came first? |
22909 | We judge memories to be of the past because the events cause the memories [Bardon] |
Full Idea: On the causal view of time's arrow, memories pertain to the 'past' just because they are caused by the events of which they are memories. | |
From: Adrian Bardon (Brief History of the Philosophy of Time [2013], 5 'Causal') | |
A reaction: How am I able to distinguish imagining the future from remembering the past? How do I tell which mental events have external causes, and which are generated by me? |
22904 | The psychological arrow of time is the direction from our memories to our anticipations [Bardon] |
Full Idea: The psychological arrow of time refers to the familiar fact that that we remember (and never anticipate) the past, and anticipate (but never remember) the future. | |
From: Adrian Bardon (Brief History of the Philosophy of Time [2013], 5 'Psychological') | |
A reaction: Bardon rejects this on the grounds that the psychology is obviously the result of the actual order of events. Otherwise time's arrow would just result from the luck of how we individually experience things. |
22906 | The direction of entropy is probabilistic, not necessary, so cannot be identical to time's arrow [Bardon] |
Full Idea: The coincidence of thermodynamic direction and the direction of time is striking, but they can't be one and the same because the thermodynamic law is merely probabilistic. Orderliness could increase, but it is highly improbable | |
From: Adrian Bardon (Brief History of the Philosophy of Time [2013], 5 'Thermodynamic') | |
A reaction: This seems to be persuasive grounds for rejecting thermodynamics as the explanation of time's arrow. |
22907 | It is arbitrary to reverse time in a more orderly universe, but not in a sub-system of it [Bardon] |
Full Idea: It would seem arbitrary to say that the direction of time is reversed if the whole universe becomes more orderly, but it isn't reversed for any particular sub-system that becomes more orderly. | |
From: Adrian Bardon (Brief History of the Philosophy of Time [2013], 5 'Thermodynamic') | |
A reaction: The thought is that if time's arrow depends on entropy, then the arrow must reverse if entropy were to reverse (however unlikely). |
22883 | It seems hard to understand change without understanding time first [Bardon] |
Full Idea: It is very tough to see how we could understand what change is without understanding what time is. | |
From: Adrian Bardon (Brief History of the Philosophy of Time [2013], Intro) | |
A reaction: This thought is aimed at those who are hoping to define time in terms of change. My working assumption is that time must be a primitive concept in any metaphysics. |
22890 | We experience static states (while walking round a house) and observe change (ship leaving dock) [Bardon] |
Full Idea: We make a fundamental distinction between perceptions of static states and dynamic processes, …such as walking around a house, and watching a ship leave dock. | |
From: Adrian Bardon (Brief History of the Philosophy of Time [2013], 2 'Kantian') | |
A reaction: This seems to be a fundamental aspect of our mind, rather than of the raw experience (slightly supporting Kant). In both cases we experience a changing sequence, but we have two different interpretations of them. |
22884 | The motion of a thing should be a fact in the present moment [Bardon] |
Full Idea: Whether or not something is in motion should be a fact about that thing now, not a fact about the thing in its past or in its future. | |
From: Adrian Bardon (Brief History of the Philosophy of Time [2013], 1 'Arrow') | |
A reaction: This is one of the present moment, in which nothing can occur if its magnitude is infinitely small. I have no solution to this problem. |
22892 | Experiences of motion may be overlapping, thus stretching out the experience [Bardon] |
Full Idea: Experience itself may be constituted by overlapping, very brief, but temporally extended, acts of awareness, each of which encompassesa temporally extended streeeeetch of perceived events. | |
From: Adrian Bardon (Brief History of the Philosophy of Time [2013], 2 'Realism') | |
A reaction: [cites Barry Dainton 2000] I think this sounds better than Russell's suggestion, though along the same lines. I take all brain events to be a sort of memory, briefly retaining their experience. Very fast events blur because of overload. |
22911 | At least eternal time gives time travellers a possible destination [Bardon] |
Full Idea: If all past, present and future events timelessly coexist, then at least there is a potential destination for the time traveller. …The Presentist treats past and future events as nonexistent, so there is no place for the time traveller to go. | |
From: Adrian Bardon (Brief History of the Philosophy of Time [2013], 6 'Fictional') | |
A reaction: Not a good reason to believe in the eternal block of time, of course. The growing block has a past which can be visited, but no future. |
22912 | Time travel is not a paradox if we include it in the eternal continuum of events [Bardon] |
Full Idea: As long as we understand any time travel events to be timelessly included in the history of the world, and thus as part of the fixed continuum of events, time travel need not give rise to paradox. | |
From: Adrian Bardon (Brief History of the Philosophy of Time [2013], 6 'Time travel') | |
A reaction: This would presumably block going back and killing your own grandparent. |
22882 | We use calendars for the order of events, and clocks for their passing [Bardon] |
Full Idea: Roughly speaking, we use calendars to track the order of events in time, and clocks to track changes and the passing of events. | |
From: Adrian Bardon (Brief History of the Philosophy of Time [2013], Intro) | |
A reaction: So calendars cover the B-Series and clocks the A-Series, showing that this distinction is deeply embedded, and wasn't invented by McTaggart. |