Combining Texts

Ideas for 'Elements of Mind', 'The Principles of Human Knowledge' and 'Event Causation: counterfactual analysis'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these texts

display all the ideas for this combination of texts


7 ideas

11. Knowledge Aims / A. Knowledge / 4. Belief / a. Beliefs
Maybe there are two kinds of belief - 'de re' beliefs and 'de dicto' beliefs [Crane]
     Full Idea: Some philosophers have claimed that there are two kinds of belief, 'de re' belief and 'de dicto' belief.
     From: Tim Crane (Elements of Mind [2001], 4.35)
     A reaction: Interesting, though it may only distinguish two objects of belief, not two types. Internalist and externalist views are implied.
Maybe beliefs don't need to be conscious, if you are not conscious of the beliefs guiding your actions [Crane]
     Full Idea: The beliefs that are currently guiding your actions do not need to be in your stream of consciousness, which suggests that beliefs do not need to be conscious at all.
     From: Tim Crane (Elements of Mind [2001], 4.31)
     A reaction: Too bold, I think. Presumably this would eliminate all the other propositional attitudes from consciousness. There would only be qualia left!
11. Knowledge Aims / A. Knowledge / 6. Knowing How
Many cases of knowing how can be expressed in propositional terms (like how to get somewhere) [Crane]
     Full Idea: There are plenty of cases of knowing how to do something, where that knowledge can also be expressed - without remainder, as it were - in propositional terms (such as knowing how to get to the Albert Hall).
     From: Tim Crane (Elements of Mind [2001], 3.28)
     A reaction: Presumably all knowing how could be expressed propositionally by God.
11. Knowledge Aims / C. Knowing Reality / 2. Phenomenalism
Perception is existence for my table, but also possible perception, by me or a spirit [Berkeley]
     Full Idea: The table I write on I say exists, that is, I see and feel it; and if I were out of my study I should say it existed - meaning thereby that if I was in my study I might perceive it, or that some other spirit actually does perceive it.
     From: George Berkeley (The Principles of Human Knowledge [1710], §3)
     A reaction: Berkeley is always (understandably) labelled as an 'idealist', but this seems to be what we call 'phenomenalism', because it allows possible experiences as well as actual ones. See Ideas 5170 and 6522.
11. Knowledge Aims / C. Knowing Reality / 3. Idealism / c. Empirical idealism
The only substance is spirit, or that which perceives [Berkeley]
     Full Idea: It is evident that there is not any other Substance than spirit, or that which perceives.
     From: George Berkeley (The Principles of Human Knowledge [1710], §7)
     A reaction: Weird. To say that this is 'evident' seems to be begging the question. Why should he assume that there is nothing more to reality than his perception of it? He seems strangely unimaginative.
The 'esse' of objects is 'percipi', and they can only exist in minds [Berkeley]
     Full Idea: The absolute existence of unthinking things with no relation to their being perceived is unintelligible to me; their 'esse' is 'percipi', nor is it possible they should have any existence out of the minds or thinking things which perceive them.
     From: George Berkeley (The Principles of Human Knowledge [1710], §3)
     A reaction: "Esse est percipi" (to be is to be perceived) is the well-known slogan associated with Berkeley. I cannot see how Berkeley can assert that the separate existence of things is impossible. He is the classic confuser of epistemology and ontology.
When I shut my eyes, the things I saw may still exist, but in another mind [Berkeley]
     Full Idea: When I shut my eyes, the things I saw may still exist, but it must be in another mind.
     From: George Berkeley (The Principles of Human Knowledge [1710], §90)
     A reaction: This strikes me as ridiculous. What kind of theory says that a table goes out of existence when someone forgets to look at it for a moment, but is then recreated in identical form? Epistemology is not ontology.