more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
To understand the verb 'to strike' we must see that 'striking' and 'being struck' are different, but necessarily go together in event and thought; only in the context of a judgment can they be distinguished, when we think of both together.
Gist of Idea
Only a judgement can distinguish 'striking' from 'being struck'
Source
Peter Geach (Abstraction Reconsidered [1983], p.168)
Book Ref
'Knowledge and Mind', ed/tr. Ginet,C/Shoemaker,S [OUP 1983], p.168
A Reaction
Geach seems to have a strange notion that judgements are pure events which can precede all experience, and are the only ways we can come to understand experience. He needs to start from animals (or 'brutes', as he still calls them!).
| 10731 | For abstractionists, concepts are capacities to recognise recurrent features of the world [Geach] |
| 10732 | If concepts are just recognitional, then general judgements would be impossible [Geach] |
| 10733 | The abstractionist cannot explain 'some' and 'not' [Geach] |
| 10734 | Only a judgement can distinguish 'striking' from 'being struck' [Geach] |
| 10735 | Abstraction from objects won't reveal an operation's being performed 'so many times' [Geach] |