5 ideas
21558 | 'Predicative' norms are those which define a class [Russell] |
Full Idea: Norms (containing one variable) which do not define classes I propose to call 'non-predicative'; those which do define classes I shall call 'predicative'. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Difficulties of Transfinite Numbers and Types [1905], p.141) |
21559 | We need rules for deciding which norms are predicative (unless none of them are) [Russell] |
Full Idea: We need rules for deciding what norms are predicative and what are not, unless we adopt the view (which has much to recommend it) that no norms are predicative. ...[146] A predative propositional function is one which determines a class. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Difficulties of Transfinite Numbers and Types [1905], p.141) | |
A reaction: He is referring to his 'no class' theory, which he favoured at that time. |
3157 | T.H.Huxley gave the earliest clear statement of epiphenomenalism [Huxley, by Rey] |
Full Idea: T.H.Huxley gave the earliest clear statement of epiphenomenalism. | |
From: report of T.H. Huxley (Method and Results [1893]) by Georges Rey - Contemporary Philosophy of Mind 3.1.1 | |
A reaction: This is, of course, impossible, because there can't be a clear statement of epiphenomenalism. |
3154 | Brain causes mind, but it doesn't seem that mind causes actions [Huxley] |
Full Idea: All states of consciousness are caused by molecular changes of brain substance. It seems to me there is no proof that any state of consciousness is the cause of change in the motion of the matter of the organism. | |
From: T.H. Huxley (Method and Results [1893], p.244), quoted by Georges Rey - Contemporary Philosophy of Mind 3.1.1 | |
A reaction: This sounds odd. Most people would say there is nothing more obvious than mental events causing actions. It certainly seems undeniable that actions are cause by the contents of thoughts, so a molecular account of intentional states is needed. |
18671 | The ground for an attitude is not a thing's 'goodness', but its concrete characteristics [Ewing] |
Full Idea: The ground for an attitude lies not in some other ethical concept, goodness, but in the concrete, factual characteristics of what we pronounce good. ...We shall not be better off if we interpolate an indefinable characteristic of goodness besides. | |
From: A.C. Ewing (The Definition of Good [1948], p.172), quoted by Francesco Orsi - Value Theory 1.4 | |
A reaction: This is a forerunner of Scanlon's Buck-Passing theory of the source of value (in other properties). I approve of this approach. If I say 'actually this very strong cheese is really good', I'm not adding goodness to the cheese. |