5 ideas
8824 | No one has defended translational phenomenalism since Ayer in 1940 [Ayer, by Kim] |
Full Idea: I know of no serious defence of 'translational phenomenalism' since Ayer's in 1940. | |
From: report of A.J. Ayer (The Foundations of Empirical Knowledge [1940]) by Jaegwon Kim - What is 'naturalized epistemology'? 303-4+n | |
A reaction: We can think of Ayer as a hero who explored how far extreme empiricism would go. We still have anti-realists who are singing from a revised version of the song-sheet. Personally I am with Russell, that we must embrace the best explanation. |
18088 | Intentionality is the mark of dispositions, not of the mental [Place] |
Full Idea: My thesis is that intentionality is the mark, not of the mental, but of the dispositional. | |
From: Ullin T. Place (Intentionality and the Physical: reply to Mumford [1999], 1) | |
A reaction: An idea with few friends, but I really like it, because it offers the prospect of a unified account of physical nature and the mind/brain. It seems reasonable to say my mind is essentially a bunch of dispositions. Mind is representations + dispositions. |
7294 | No crime and no punishment without a law [Roman law] |
Full Idea: An ancient principle of Roman law states, nullum crimen et nulla poene sine lege, - there is no crime and no punishment without a law. | |
From: [Roman law] (Roman Law [c.100]), quoted by A.C. Grayling - Among the Dead Cities Ch.6 | |
A reaction: That there is no 'punishment' without law seems the basis of civilization. Suppose a strong person imposed firm punishment in order to forestall more brutal revenge by others? What motivates the creation of criminal laws? |
15251 | The attribution of necessity to causation is either primitive animism, or confusion with logical necessity [Ayer] |
Full Idea: How are we to explain the word 'must' [about causation]? The answer is, I think, that it is either a relic of animism, or else reveals an inclination to treat causal connexion as if it were a form of logical necessity. | |
From: A.J. Ayer (The Foundations of Empirical Knowledge [1940], IV.18) | |
A reaction: The animism proposal just about makes sense (as a primitive feature of minds), but why would anyone, if they had the time and understanding, dream of treating a regular connection as a 'logical' necessity? |
18089 | Dispositions are not general laws, but laws of the natures of individual entities [Place] |
Full Idea: Dispositions are the substantive laws, not, as for Armstrong, of nature in general, but of the nature of individual entities whose dispositional properties they are. | |
From: Ullin T. Place (Intentionality and the Physical: reply to Mumford [1999], 6) | |
A reaction: [He notes that Nancy Cartwright 1989 agrees with him] I like this a lot. I tend to denegrate 'laws', because of their dubious ontological status, but this restores laws to the picture, in the place where they belong, in the stuff of the world. |