more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
I do not know any better way of showing what there is than looking at the assumptions needed to make sense of our normal talk.
Gist of Idea
The best way to do ontology is to make sense of our normal talk
Source
Donald Davidson (Causal Relations [1967], §4)
Book Ref
Davidson,Donald: 'Essays on Actions and Events' [OUP 1982], p.162
A Reaction
Davidson was a pupil of Quine. This I take to be the last flowering of twentieth century linguistic philosophy. The ontology we deduce from talk in a children's playground might be very bizarre, but we are unlikely to endorse it. 'Honest, it's true!'
| 10371 | Distinguish causation, which is in the world, from explanations, which depend on descriptions [Davidson, by Schaffer,J] |
| 8403 | Either facts, or highly unspecific events, serve better as causes than concrete events [Field,H on Davidson] |
| 4778 | A singular causal statement is true if it is held to fall under a law [Davidson, by Psillos] |
| 8346 | Full descriptions can demonstrate sufficiency of cause, but not necessity [Davidson] |
| 8349 | The best way to do ontology is to make sense of our normal talk [Davidson] |
| 8348 | If we don't assume that events exist, we cannot make sense of our common talk [Davidson] |
| 8347 | Explanations typically relate statements, not events [Davidson] |