more on this theme
|
more from this text
Single Idea 10734
[filed under theme 18. Thought / E. Abstraction / 8. Abstractionism Critique
]
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!).
The
27 ideas
from Peter Geach
|
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]
|
|
22489
|
'Good' is an attributive adjective like 'large', not predicative like 'red'
[Geach, by Foot]
|
|
2567
|
You can't define real mental states in terms of behaviour that never happens
[Geach]
|
|
2568
|
Beliefs aren't tied to particular behaviours
[Geach]
|
|
8769
|
If someone has aphasia but can still play chess, they clearly have concepts
[Geach]
|
|
8770
|
'Abstractionism' is acquiring a concept by picking out one experience amongst a group
[Geach]
|
|
8771
|
'Or' and 'not' are not to be found in the sensible world, or even in the world of inner experience
[Geach]
|
|
8772
|
We can't acquire number-concepts by extracting the number from the things being counted
[Geach]
|
|
8773
|
Abstractionists can't explain counting, because it must precede experience of objects
[Geach]
|
|
8774
|
The numbers don't exist in nature, so they cannot have been abstracted from there into our languages
[Geach]
|
|
8775
|
A big flea is a small animal, so 'big' and 'small' cannot be acquired by abstraction
[Geach]
|
|
8776
|
We cannot learn relations by abstraction, because their converse must be learned too
[Geach]
|
|
8778
|
Blind people can use colour words like 'red' perfectly intelligently
[Geach]
|
|
8777
|
If 'black' and 'cat' can be used in the absence of such objects, how can such usage be abstracted?
[Geach]
|
|
8779
|
We can form two different abstract concepts that apply to a single unified experience
[Geach]
|
|
8780
|
Attributes are functions, not objects; this distinguishes 'square of 2' from 'double of 2'
[Geach]
|
|
8781
|
The mind does not lift concepts from experience; it creates them, and then applies them
[Geach]
|
|
11910
|
Being 'the same' is meaningless, unless we specify 'the same X'
[Geach]
|
|
8969
|
We should abandon absolute identity, confining it to within some category
[Geach, by Hawthorne]
|
|
16075
|
Denial of absolute identity has drastic implications for logic, semantics and set theory
[Wasserman on Geach]
|
|
12154
|
Are 'word token' and 'word type' different sorts of countable objects, or two ways of counting?
[Geach, by Perry]
|
|
16073
|
Leibniz's Law is incomplete, since it includes a non-relativized identity predicate
[Geach, by Wasserman]
|
|
12152
|
Identity is relative. One must not say things are 'the same', but 'the same A as'
[Geach]
|