|
12189
|
Logical necessity involves a decision about usage, and is non-realist and non-cognitive [Wright,C, by McFetridge]
|
|
Full Idea:
Wright espouses a non-realist, indeed non-cognitive account of logical necessity. Crucial to this is the idea that acceptance of a statement as necessary always involves an element of decision (to use it in a necessary way).
|
|
From:
report of Crispin Wright (Inventing Logical Necessity [1986]) by Ian McFetridge - Logical Necessity: Some Issues §3
|
|
A reaction:
This has little appeal to me, as I take (unfashionably) the view that that logical necessity is rooted in the behaviour of the actual physical world, with which you can't argue. We test simple logic by making up examples.
|
|
7320
|
Holism cannot give a coherent account of scientific methodology [Wright,C, by Miller,A]
|
|
Full Idea:
Crispin Wright has argued that Quine's holism is implausible because it is actually incoherent: he claims that Quine's holism cannot provide us with a coherent account of scientific methodology.
|
|
From:
report of Crispin Wright (Inventing Logical Necessity [1986]) by Alexander Miller - Philosophy of Language 4.5
|
|
A reaction:
This sounds promising, given my intuitive aversion to linguistic holism, and almost everything to do with Quine. Scientific methodology is not isolated, but spreads into our ordinary (experimental) interactions with the world (e.g. Idea 2461).
|
|
23279
|
It is important that a person can change their character, and not just be successive 'selves' [Williams,B]
|
|
Full Idea:
I want to emphasise the basic importance of the ordinary idea of a self or person which undergoes changes of character, as opposed to dissolving a changing person into a series of 'selves'.
|
|
From:
Bernard Williams (Persons, Character and Morality [1976], II)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] He mentions Derek Parfit for the rival view. Williams has the Aristotelian view, that a person has an essential nature, which endures through change, and explains that change. But that needs some non-essential character traits.
|
|
23278
|
For utilitarians states of affairs are what have value, not matter who produced them [Williams,B]
|
|
Full Idea:
The basic bearer of value for Utilitarianism is the state of affairs, and hence, when the relevant causal differences have been allowed for, it cannot make any further difference who produces a given state of affairs.
|
|
From:
Bernard Williams (Persons, Character and Morality [1976], I)
|
|
A reaction:
Which is morally better, that I water your bed of flowers, or that it rains? Which is morally better, that I water them from love, or because you threaten me with a whip?
|