more on this theme     |     more from this thinker

Single Idea 3104

[filed under theme 18. Thought / C. Content / 6. Broad Content ]

Full Idea

Is a relationship with diamonds necessary for having a concept of diamonds?

Gist of Idea

Must we relate to some diamonds to understand them?

Source

Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 1.4)

Book Ref

Segal,Gabriel M.A.: 'A Slim Book about Narrow Content' [MIT 2000], p.10

A Reaction

Probably not, given that I have a concept of kryptonite, and that I can invent my own concepts. Suppose I was brought up to believe that diamonds are a myth?

The 18 ideas from 'A Slim Book about Narrow Content'

3103 Maybe content involves relations to a language community [Segal]
3104 Must we relate to some diamonds to understand them? [Segal]
3105 Is 'Hesperus = Phosphorus' metaphysically necessary, but not logically or epistemologically necessary? [Segal]
3106 If claims of metaphysical necessity are based on conceivability, we should be cautious [Segal]
3108 If 'water' has narrow content, it refers to both H2O and XYZ [Segal]
3109 If content is external, so are beliefs and desires [Segal]
3110 Humans are made of H2O, so 'twins' aren't actually feasible [Segal]
3113 The success and virtue of an explanation do not guarantee its truth [Segal]
3112 Folk psychology is ridiculously dualist in its assumptions [Segal]
3111 Externalism can't explain concepts that have no reference [Segal]
3116 Maybe experts fix content, not ordinary users [Segal]
3117 Concepts can survive a big change in extension [Segal]
3118 If thoughts ARE causal, we can't explain how they cause things [Segal]
3119 Even 'mass' cannot be defined in causal terms [Segal]
3121 If content is narrow, my perfect twin shares my concepts [Segal]
3123 Science is in the business of carving nature at the joints [Segal]
3124 Externalists can't assume old words refer to modern natural kinds [Segal]
3125 Psychology studies the way rationality links desires and beliefs to causality [Segal]