Combining Philosophers

All the ideas for Tim Bayne, John Austin and Cheryl Misak

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these philosophers


20 ideas

2. Reason / A. Nature of Reason / 5. Objectivity
Modern pragmatism sees objectivity as possible, despite its gradual evolution [Misak]
     Full Idea: One of the pillars of the new pragmatism is the thought that the standards of objectivity come into being and evolve over time, but that being historically situated in this way does not detract from their objectivity.
     From: Cheryl Misak (Introduction to 'New Pragmatists' [2007], p.2)
     A reaction: This looks to me like pragmatism finally coming to its senses. I would say that being any sort of 'social construct' (beloved of cultural relativists) in no way detracts from its capacity for objectivity and truth.
3. Truth / E. Pragmatic Truth / 1. Pragmatic Truth
Truth makes disagreements matter, or worth settling [Misak]
     Full Idea: The role of truth is to make disagreements matter, or to make sense of wanting to resolve disagreements.
     From: Cheryl Misak (Pragmatism and Deflationism [2007], 2)
     A reaction: [She cites Huw Price 2003] This suggests that the most important use of 'truth' is forensic. It is hard to make any sense of a law court without a robust sense of truth. Trial by jury, rather than some great personage, shows this value.
For pragmatists the loftiest idea of truth is just a feature of what remains forever assertible [Misak]
     Full Idea: For pragmatists there is an unseverable connection between making an assertion and claiming that it is true. ...Were we to get to a belief that is forever assertible...then we would have a true belief. There is nothing higher or better we could ask of it.
     From: Cheryl Misak (Pragmatism and Deflationism [2007], 1)
     A reaction: She is particularly drawing on Peirce. She says his 'ideal end of enquiry' idea is a small aspect of his view of truth, which is mainly given here. I had taken the pragmatic view of truth to be silly, but I may rethink.
'True' is used for emphasis, clarity, assertion, comparison, objectivity, meaning, negation, consequence... [Misak]
     Full Idea: 'P is true' is used to emphasise p, and avoid logic problems. The pragmatists says there are plenty of other uses: the aim of assertion or deliberation, the improvement of our views, distinguishing objectivity, explaining meaning, negation, consequence...
     From: Cheryl Misak (Pragmatism and Deflationism [2007], 2)
     A reaction: Pragmatism seems to break 'true' down into its many uses, rather than having a specific theory of truth. This might be where ordinary language philosophy (how is the word 'true' used) meets pragmatism (how is the concept [true] used).
'That's true' doesn't just refer back to a sentence, but implies sustained evidence for it [Misak]
     Full Idea: The pragmatist says 'That's so' or 'that's true' are not just 'pro-sentential', but carry with them the thought that evidence does currently speak in favour of the statement asserted, and the prediction that it will continue to speak in favour.
     From: Cheryl Misak (Pragmatism and Deflationism [2007], 3)
     A reaction: This is a very nice point made by a pragmatist against the flimsy view of truth held by various deflationary views. You ought to believe what is true, and stand by what you hold to be true.
Truth isn't a grand elusive property, if it is just the aim of our assertions and inquiries [Misak]
     Full Idea: If truth is what satisfies our aims in first-order assertion and inquiry (as the pragmatist says), then there is no search for an elusive property, or a metaphysical property, or a property which we cannot grasp.
     From: Cheryl Misak (Pragmatism and Deflationism [2007], 3)
     A reaction: This pragmatic approach is much more persuasive than the usual caricature of pragmatic truth (Idea 19097), but I'm beginning to wonder how you distinguish an 'inquiry' (or 'assertion') from other modes of thought. Do I smell a circularity?
Truth is proper assertion, but that has varying standards [Misak]
     Full Idea: The pragmatist will say that truth is proper assertion, but different discourses have different standards for proper assertion.
     From: Cheryl Misak (Pragmatism and Deflationism [2007], 4)
     A reaction: This remark shows that there is a pragmatic attitude towards truth behind most attempts to analyse the concept of assertion. When and why is assertion legitimate, and what motivates it?
3. Truth / F. Semantic Truth / 1. Tarski's Truth / a. Tarski's truth definition
Disquotation is bivalent [Misak]
     Full Idea: The disquotational schema entails bivalence.
     From: Cheryl Misak (Pragmatism and Deflationism [2007], 2 n10)
     A reaction: A simple but interesting observation. Critics of Tarski observe that he depends on a bivalent logic.
Disquotations says truth is assertion, and assertion proclaims truth - but what is 'assertion'? [Misak]
     Full Idea: The point of the disquotational schema is that to say that a sentence is true is to assert it, and to assert a sentence is to say that it is true. We must then ask what it is to assert or endorse a proposition.
     From: Cheryl Misak (Pragmatism and Deflationism [2007], 4)
     A reaction: [She is referring to the views of Crispin Wright] Most people would say that we assert something because we think it is true, and truth is obviously prior. Clearly if it has been asserted, that was because someone thought it was true.
Disquotationalism resembles a telephone directory [Misak]
     Full Idea: Disquotationalism is more like a telephone directory than a theory.
     From: Cheryl Misak (Pragmatism and Deflationism [2007], 2 n7)
     A reaction: [She cites Wilfred Sellars 1962:33] The idea is that there is a schema - 'p' is true iff p - and that all the acceptable sentences of a language can be expressed in this way, making a vast but finite list. It seems to replace 'theories'.
3. Truth / H. Deflationary Truth / 2. Deflationary Truth
Deflating the correspondence theory doesn't entail deflating all the other theories [Misak]
     Full Idea: We must not move seamlessly from the thought that the correspondence theory must be deflated to the thought that any theory of truth must be deflated.
     From: Cheryl Misak (Pragmatism and Deflationism [2007], 2)
     A reaction: This rather good essay offers the idea that Peircean pragmatic approaches to truth can meet the deflationary desires of the opponents of correspondence, without jettisoning all the crucial naturalistic connections with reality. Interesting.
Deflationism isn't a theory of truth, but an account of its role in natural language [Misak]
     Full Idea: Deflationist theories are not theories of truth, or theories of what truth is. ...They are theories which try to explain the role that 'true' plays in natural languages.
     From: Cheryl Misak (Pragmatism and Deflationism [2007], 3)
     A reaction: [She cites Dorothy Grover 2001,2002] If so, then the modern axiomatic theory of truth sounds appealing, because it tries to give a fuller and more precise account than a mere list is disquotations could possibly give.
7. Existence / D. Theories of Reality / 4. Anti-realism
The anti-realism debate concerns whether indefeasibility is a plausible aim of inquiry [Misak]
     Full Idea: If indefeasibility turns out to be something we can't sensibly aim at in a kind of inquiry, then the judgements that arise from that kind of 'inquiry' are not truth-apt. It is here that the realism/anti-realism debate resides.
     From: Cheryl Misak (Pragmatism and Deflationism [2007], 4)
     A reaction: A very interesting way of presenting the issue, one that makes the debate sound (to me) considerably more interesting than hitherto. I may start using the word 'indefeasible' rather a lot, in my chats with the anti-realist philosophical multitude.
13. Knowledge Criteria / B. Internal Justification / 3. Evidentialism / a. Evidence
How we evaluate evidence depends on our background beliefs [Bayne]
     Full Idea: A claim that might be very plausible given one set of background beliefs might be highly implausible when evaluated in the light of a different set of background beliefs.
     From: Tim Bayne (Thought: a very short introduction [2013], Ch.7)
Clifford's dictum seems to block our beliefs in morality, politics and philosophy [Bayne]
     Full Idea: Endorsing Clifford's dictum threatens to undermine our right to hold many of our most cherished beliefs about morality, politics, and philosophy, for these are domains in which it is notoriously difficult to secure consensus.
     From: Tim Bayne (Thought: a very short introduction [2013], Ch.7)
     A reaction: I would say that those beliefs are amenable to evidence, but the evidence is often highly generalised, which is what makes those subjects notoriously difficult. The existence of a convention is a sort of evidence.
17. Mind and Body / E. Mind as Physical / 1. Physical Mind
Physicalism correlates brain and mind, explains causation by thought, and makes nature continuous [Bayne]
     Full Idea: The motivations for physicalism about the mind are that it accounts for correlations between states of the brain and states of thought, ...that it accounts for the causal role of thoughts, ...and that it does justice to the continuity of nature.
     From: Tim Bayne (Thought: a very short introduction [2013], Ch.2)
     A reaction: [summary] That is a pretty good summary of why I am a physicalist about the mind. I take all other theories to be dead footnotes in the history of thought - unless someone can produce a really good new argument. Which they can't.
18. Thought / A. Modes of Thought / 8. Human Thought
Perception reveals what animals think, but humans can disengage thought from perception [Bayne]
     Full Idea: One striking feature of human thought involves our ability to disengage the focus of thought from that of our perceptual attention. ...To get a fix on what an animal is thinking about, one need only determine the object of its perceptual attention.
     From: Tim Bayne (Thought: a very short introduction [2013], Ch.4)
     A reaction: What happens when an animal closes its eyes, or stirs violently during sleep? I take the hallmark of human thought to be its multi-level character, and this offers nice evidence for that view. Doing philosophy while driving a car is very revealing.
Some people centre space on themselves; others centre space on the earth [Bayne]
     Full Idea: Egocentric conceptions of space employ a frame of reference that is focused on oneself; ...geocentric conceptions of space, by contrast, employ a frame of reference that is centred on the earth.
     From: Tim Bayne (Thought: a very short introduction [2013], Ch.5)
     A reaction: Famously, Europeans nearly always employ the egocentric conception, but many other cultures are geocentric. Thus the salt cellar is either 'to my left' or 'to the west'. In the latter view, everyone always knows their orientation (even indoors?).
18. Thought / B. Mechanics of Thought / 4. Language of Thought
The alternative to a language of thought is map-like or diagram-like thought [Bayne]
     Full Idea: One could think that the structure of thought has more in common with that of maps or diagrams, and is not particularly language-like.
     From: Tim Bayne (Thought: a very short introduction [2013], Ch.2)
     A reaction: It seems unwise to be ensnared by analogies on this one, since the phenomenon is buried deep. You can no more infer what goes on underneath than you can infer electrons from looking at trees?
25. Social Practice / D. Justice / 2. The Law / d. Legal positivism
The existence of law is one thing, its merits and demerits another [Austin,J]
     Full Idea: The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard is a different enquiry.
     From: John Austin (Lectures on Jurisprudence [1858], p.214), quoted by Jens Zimmermann - Hermeneutics: a very short introduction 6 'Positivism'
     A reaction: It is impossible to contest this point, but the issue is whether there is nothing more to law than its written existence.