more on this theme     |     more from this text


Single Idea 14092

[filed under theme 1. Philosophy / F. Analytic Philosophy / 5. Linguistic Analysis ]

Full Idea

Philosophers can sometimes be too fussy about the words they use, dismissing as 'unintelligible' or 'obscure' certain forms of language that are perfectly meaningful by ordinary standards, and which may be of some real use.

Gist of Idea

Philosophers are often too fussy about words, dismissing perfectly useful ordinary terms

Source

Gideon Rosen (Metaphysical Dependence [2010], 01)

Book Ref

'Modality', ed/tr. Hale,B/Hoffman,A [OUP 2010], p.109


A Reaction

Analytic philosophers are inclined to drop terms they can't formalise, but there is more to every concept than its formalisation (Frege's 'direction' for example). I want to rescue 'abstraction' and 'essence'. Rosen says distinguish, don't formalise.


The 29 ideas from Gideon Rosen

Nowadays abstractions are defined as non-spatial, causally inert things [Rosen]
Chess may be abstract, but it has existed in specific space and time [Rosen]
Sets are said to be abstract and non-spatial, but a set of books can be on a shelf [Rosen]
Functional terms can pick out abstractions by asserting an equivalence relation [Rosen]
Abstraction by equivalence relationships might prove that a train is an abstract entity [Rosen]
The Way of Abstraction used to say an abstraction is an idea that was formed by abstracting [Rosen]
Conflating abstractions with either sets or universals is a big claim, needing a big defence [Rosen]
How we refer to abstractions is much less clear than how we refer to other things [Rosen]
Metaphysical necessity is absolute and universal; metaphysical possibility is very tolerant [Rosen]
'Metaphysical' modality is the one that makes the necessity or contingency of laws of nature interesting [Rosen]
Something may be necessary because of logic, but is that therefore a special sort of necessity? [Rosen]
A Meinongian principle might say that there is an object for any modest class of properties [Rosen]
Pairing (with Extensionality) guarantees an infinity of sets, just from a single element [Rosen]
A proposition is 'correctly' conceivable if an ominiscient being could conceive it [Rosen]
The MRL view says laws are the theorems of the simplest and strongest account of the world [Rosen]
Combinatorial theories of possibility assume the principles of combination don't change across worlds [Rosen]
Standard Metaphysical Necessity: P holds wherever the actual form of the world holds [Rosen]
Non-Standard Metaphysical Necessity: when ¬P is incompatible with the nature of things [Rosen]
Sets, universals and aggregates may be metaphysically necessary in one sense, but not another [Rosen]
Philosophers are often too fussy about words, dismissing perfectly useful ordinary terms [Rosen]
An 'intrinsic' property is one that depends on a thing and its parts, and not on its relations [Rosen]
The excellent notion of metaphysical 'necessity' cannot be defined [Rosen]
Facts are structures of worldly items, rather like sentences, individuated by their ingredients [Rosen]
Explanations fail to be monotonic [Rosen]
Things could be true 'in virtue of' others as relations between truths, or between truths and items [Rosen]
Figuring in the definition of a thing doesn't make it a part of that thing [Rosen]
An acid is just a proton donor [Rosen]
'Bachelor' consists in or reduces to 'unmarried' male, but not the other way around [Rosen]
Are necessary truths rooted in essences, or also in basic grounding laws? [Rosen]