28 ideas
18890 | Putnam smuggles essentialism about liquids into his proof that water must be H2O [Salmon,N on Putnam] |
Full Idea: In the full exposition of Putnam's mechanism for generating the necessary truth that water is H2O, we find that the mechanism employs a certain nontrivial general principle of essentialism concerning liquid substances as a crucial premise. | |
From: comment on Hilary Putnam (The Meaning of 'Meaning' [1975]) by Nathan Salmon - Reference and Essence (1st edn) 6.23.1 | |
A reaction: This charge, that Kripke and Putnam smuggle the essentialism into their semantics, rather than deriving it, is the nub of Salmon's criticism of them. It seems to me that a new world view emerged while those two where revising the semantics. |
7705 | The Twin Earth theory suggests that intentionality is independent of qualia [Jacquette on Putnam] |
Full Idea: Putnam's Twin Earth thought experiment suggests that two thinkers can have identical qualia, despite intending different objects on Earth and Twin Earth, and hence that qualia and intentionality must be logically independent of one another. | |
From: comment on Hilary Putnam (The Meaning of 'Meaning' [1975]) by Dale Jacquette - Ontology Ch.10 | |
A reaction: [See Idea 4099, Idea 3208, Idea 7612 for Twin Earth]. Presumably my thought of 'the smallest prime number above 10000' would be a bit thin on qualia too. Does that make them 'logically' independent? Depends what we reduce qualia or intentionality to. |
4099 | If Twins talking about 'water' and 'XYZ' have different thoughts but identical heads, then thoughts aren't in the head [Putnam, by Crane] |
Full Idea: Putnam claims that the Twins have different thoughts even though their heads are the same, so their thoughts (about 'water' or 'XYZ') cannot be in their heads. | |
From: report of Hilary Putnam (The Meaning of 'Meaning' [1975]) by Tim Crane - Elements of Mind 4.37 | |
A reaction: Is Putnam guilty of a simple confusion of de re and de dicto reference? |
12026 | We say ice and steam are different forms of water, but not that they are different forms of H2O [Forbes,G on Putnam] |
Full Idea: Putnam presumes it is correct to say that ice and steam are forms of water, rather than that ice, water and steam are three forms of H2O. If we allow the latter, then 'water is H2O' is not an identity, but elliptical for 'water is H2O in liquid state'. | |
From: comment on Hilary Putnam (The Meaning of 'Meaning' [1975]) by Graeme Forbes - The Metaphysics of Modality 8.2 | |
A reaction: This nice observation seems to reveal that the word 'water' is ambiguous. I presume the ambiguity preceded the discovery of its chemical construction. Shakespeare would have hesitated over whether to say 'water is ice'. Context would matter. |
3208 | Does 'water' mean a particular substance that was 'dubbed'? [Putnam, by Rey] |
Full Idea: Putnam argued that "water" refers to H2O by virtue of causal chains extending from present use back to early dubbing uses of it that were in fact dubbings of the substance H2O (although, of course, the original users of the word didn't know this). | |
From: report of Hilary Putnam (The Meaning of 'Meaning' [1975]) by Georges Rey - Contemporary Philosophy of Mind 9.2.1 | |
A reaction: This is the basic idea of the Causal Theory of Reference. Nice conclusion: most of us don't know what we are talking about. Maybe the experts on H2O are also wrong... |
3893 | Often reference determines sense, and not (as Frege thought) vice versa [Putnam, by Scruton] |
Full Idea: Putnam argues that, Frege notwithstanding, it is often the case that reference determines sense, and not vice versa. | |
From: report of Hilary Putnam (The Meaning of 'Meaning' [1975]) by Roger Scruton - Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey 19.6 | |
A reaction: Does this say anything more than that once you have established a reference, you can begin to collect information about the referent? |
23154 | We divide mankind into friend and foe, and cooperate with one and compete with the other [Russell] |
Full Idea: Instinctively we divide mankind into friends and foes - friends, towards whom we have a morality of co-operation; foes, towards whom we have that of competition. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Authority and the Individual [1949], 1) | |
A reaction: Interesting, because I have though of cooperation and competition as intrinsic features of people, internal to their nature, but this idea observes that it is more external, as two responses to two sharply distinct aspects of experience. |
23153 | Gradually loyalty to a creed increased, which could even outweigh nationality [Russell] |
Full Idea: At a later stage in the development of civilization, a new kind of loyalty began to be developed, based on identity of creed. …Its military strength was displayed in Islam …and later loyalities of Catholics or Protestants could outweigh nationality. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Authority and the Individual [1949], 1) | |
A reaction: [compressed] The only examples of creed loyalty that come to mind are religious. With increased migration in the modern world the phenomenon of divided loyalties has grown. Can a political theory cope with divided loyalties? |
23152 | Increasingly war expands communities, and unifies them through fear [Russell] |
Full Idea: From early days down to modern times war has been the chief engine in enlarging the size of communities, and fear has increasingly replaced tribal solidarity as a source of social cohesion. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Authority and the Individual [1949], 1) | |
A reaction: It is a feature of modern nationalism to try to generate fear of various outsiders, even in times of peace. Most of us despise such things, but the underlying desire for greater national unity is not unworthy. What enemies would a world state have? |
23155 | In early societies the leaders needed cohesion, but the rest just had to obey [Russell] |
Full Idea: In historical societies such as ancient Egypt only a minority at the top of the social scale - the king, the aristocracy and the priests - needed any psychological mechanism towards social cohesion; all the rest merely obeyed. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Authority and the Individual [1949], 2) | |
A reaction: This is why even now I take obedience to be a key right-wing virtue, though it is usually reinforced through national myths and distorted proganda. Quasi-worship of the leader also seems to be a major ingredient. Obedience unifies armies. |
23156 | The economic and political advantages of great size seem to have no upper limit [Russell] |
Full Idea: Short of the whole planet there is no visible limit to the advantages of size, both in economic and in political organisation. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Authority and the Individual [1949], 2) | |
A reaction: Obviously there are also disadvantages, such as the vast distances, and the alienation of people far from the centre. I take economies of scale to be one of the advantages of socialist nationalisations. |
23157 | Government has a negative purpose, to prevent trouble, and a positive aim of realising our desires [Russell] |
Full Idea: Government has a negative function, to prevent private violence, to protect life and property, to enact criminal law and secure its enforcement. It also has a positive purpose, to facilitate the realisation of desires common to most of the citizens. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Authority and the Individual [1949], 2) | |
A reaction: [compressed] Interesting because the second purpose is rarely cited. Governments improve communications, facilitate trade, and encourage health and education services, which we all want. |
23151 | A monarch is known to everyone in the group, and can thus unite large groups [Russell] |
Full Idea: At a very early stage loyalty to a group must have been reinforced by loyalty to a leader. In a large tribe the king or chief may be known the everybody even when individuals are strangers. This makes possible increase in the size of the group. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Authority and the Individual [1949], 1) | |
A reaction: In this way humanity could move from hunter-gatherer groups to tribes or clans. In the UK even people who couldn't name the current Prime Minister are all fully aware of the monarch. In this way a merely constitutional monarch makes sense, |
23167 | Power should be with smaller bodies, as long as it doesn't restrict central powers [Russell] |
Full Idea: The general principle of delimiting powers should be to leave to smaller bodies all functions which do not prevent larger bodies from fulfilling their purpose. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Authority and the Individual [1949], 5) | |
A reaction: In recent years in the UK smaller local bodies have been severely reduced in power by central government. This is nominally in favour of individuals, but in practice seems to have strengthened the centre. Russell was keen on devolving powers. |
23163 | In an anarchy universities, research, books, and even seaside holidays, would be impossible [Russell] |
Full Idea: It is obvious that in a state of anarchy there could not be universities or scientific research or publication of books, or even such simple things as seaside holidays. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Authority and the Individual [1949], 5) | |
A reaction: A seaside holiday seems possible, though it obviously needs means of publicity, and of transport. Why is a private university impossible? The general thought seems to be that anything very complex would be impossible. Maybe. |
23168 | A state is essential, to control greedy or predatory impulses [Russell] |
Full Idea: The control of greedy or predatory impulses is imperatively necessary, and therefore States …are needed for survival. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Authority and the Individual [1949], 5) | |
A reaction: The anarchist replies that the corruption of this benevolent state is precisely the problem they are trying to avoid. Perhaps the emphasis should be on the rule of law, rather than on people holding centralised power. |
23166 | In democracy we are more aware of being governed than of our tiny share in government [Russell] |
Full Idea: In a democracy you have a 20 millionth share in the government of others, but only a 20 millionth share in the government of yourself. You are therefore much more conscious of being governed than of governing. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Authority and the Individual [1949], 5) | |
A reaction: Nice. Add to that the fact that your share in governing others only occurs at election time. In between we are powerless spectators, but we are still governed. |
23162 | Managers are just as remote from workers under nationalisation as under capitalism [Russell] |
Full Idea: Nationalisation leaves managers and officials almost as remote from the workers as they are under a capitalist regime. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Authority and the Individual [1949], 4) | |
A reaction: Russell's solution is workplace democracy. Presumably that could be imposed on a nationalised industry much more easily than on a profit-driven private capitalist industry. |
23165 | Socialists say economic justice needs some state control of industries, and of foreign trade [Russell] |
Full Idea: Economic justice is held by Socialists (rightly, in my opinion) to involve state ownership of key industries and considerable regulation of foreign trade. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Authority and the Individual [1949], 5) | |
A reaction: This must be to obtain greater control over the profits of industry, and also to prevent trade become too exploitative of weaker foreign nations. Britain had a socialist government when this book was written. |
23160 | Being a slave of society is hardly better than being a slave of a despot [Russell] |
Full Idea: A society in which each is the slave of all is only a little better than one in which each is the slave of a despot. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Authority and the Individual [1949], 4) | |
A reaction: This seems to apply quite accurately to the position of those state employees who have the lowest status and wages. Society as a whole exploits them, so it is hard to point the finger at their oppressors. |
23158 | Slavery began the divorce between the work and the purposes of the worker [Russell] |
Full Idea: The introduction of slavery began the divorce between the purpose of the work and the purposes of the worker. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Authority and the Individual [1949], 4) | |
A reaction: Worth saying, because marxists tend to blame more recent capitalism for creating this problem (of 'alienation'). There are many degrees of slavery. |
23161 | Slaves can be just as equal as free people [Russell] |
Full Idea: There is equality where all are slaves, as well as where all are free. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Authority and the Individual [1949], 4) | |
A reaction: A nice observation, though a person is only a slave if someone controls them, so it is not strictly true. |
23159 | Scarce goods may be denied entirely, to avoid their unequal distribution [Russell] |
Full Idea: There is a risk that, in the pursuit of equality, good things which there is difficulty in distributing evenly may not be admitted to be good. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Authority and the Individual [1949], 4) | |
A reaction: Lovely sentence. The clarity and economy with which he expresses an intricate idea. Why can't you philosophers all write like that? This is not just the unequal distribution of scarce goods, but a subtler problem. The finest wines, for example. |
23164 | Modern justice is seen as equality, apart from modest extra rewards for exceptional desert [Russell] |
Full Idea: Justice has come to be interpreted as equality, except where exceptional merit is thought to deserve an exceptional but still moderate reward. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Authority and the Individual [1949], 5) | |
A reaction: Kekes rebels against this modern distortion of justice, which traditionally means everyone getting what they deserve - good or bad. The modern egalitarian view seems to be a rebellion against the harsh interpretation of the older view. |
11191 | The hidden structure of a natural kind determines membership in all possible worlds [Putnam] |
Full Idea: If there is a hidden structure, then generally it determines what it is to be a member of the natural kind, ...in all possible worlds. Put another way, it determines what we can and cannot counterfactually suppose about the natural kind. | |
From: Hilary Putnam (The Meaning of 'Meaning' [1975], p.241) | |
A reaction: This is the arrival of the bold new view of natural kinds (which is actually the original view - see Idea 8153). One must be careful of the necessity here. There is causal context, vagueness etc. |
11192 | If causes are the essence of diseases, then disease is an example of a relational essence [Putnam, by Williams,NE] |
Full Idea: Putnam takes causes to be the essence of disease kinds, and they are distinct from the diseases they cause, both in identity and in proper parthood. These are relational properties, so Putnam gives examples of natural kinds with relational essences. | |
From: report of Hilary Putnam (The Meaning of 'Meaning' [1975]) by Neil E. Williams - Putnam's Traditional Neo-Essentialism §4 | |
A reaction: This seems to be a nice point, since scientific essentialism invariable takes itself to be pursuing instrinsic properties when it unravels the essences of natural kinds. Probably the best response is the Putnam has got muddled. |
11190 | Archimedes meant by 'gold' the hidden structure or essence of the stuff [Putnam] |
Full Idea: When Archimedes asserted that something was gold, he was not just saying that it had the superficial characteristics of gold; he was saying that it had the same general hidden structure (the same 'essence', so to speak) as any normal piece of local gold. | |
From: Hilary Putnam (The Meaning of 'Meaning' [1975], p.235) | |
A reaction: This is one of the key announcements of the new scientific essentialism, and seems to me to be totally correct. Obviously Archimedes could say 'this is really gold, even if it no way appears to be gold'. |
7482 | Resurrection developed in Judaism as a response to martyrdoms, in about 160 BCE [Anon (Dan), by Watson] |
Full Idea: The idea of resurrection in Judaism seems to have first developed around 160 BCE, during the time of religious martyrdom, and as a response to it (the martyrs were surely not dying forever?). It is first mentioned in the book of Daniel. | |
From: report of Anon (Dan) (27: Book of Daniel [c.165 BCE], Ch.7) by Peter Watson - Ideas | |
A reaction: Idea 7473 suggests that Zoroaster beat them to it by 800 years. |