43 ideas
| 3879 | Philosophy aims to provide a theory of everything [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: Philosophy studies everything: it tries to provide a theory of the whole of things. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 1.2) | |
| A reaction: Good, but you can't avoid value-judgements about which things are important; philosophers place more value on moral theories than on theories about glacier movement. There is a tension in philosophy between human and eternal concerns. |
| 3891 | If p entails q, then p is sufficient for q, and q is necessary for p [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: If p entails q, then p is sufficient for q, and q is necessary for p. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 15.7) |
| 20768 | Like spiderswebs, dialectical arguments are clever but useless [Ariston, by Diog. Laertius] |
| Full Idea: He said that dialectical arguments were like spiderswebs: although they seem to indicate craftsmanlike skill, they are useless. | |
| From: report of Ariston (fragments/reports [c.250 BCE]) by Diogenes Laertius - Lives of Eminent Philosophers 07.161 | |
| A reaction: Useful for the spider, but useless to Ariston. |
| 3894 | We may define 'good' correctly, but then ask whether the application of the definition is good [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: The 'open question' argument is clearly invalid. A question remains open just so long as our ignorance permits. …It may be an open question whether promoting happiness is good, even though this is what 'good' means. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 20.1) | |
| A reaction: A nice objection. Like small children, we can keep asking questions forever. Whether there is a question to be asked about a thing is not a property of that thing, but of us who ask it. |
| 3883 | A true proposition is consistent with every other true proposition [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: A true proposition is consistent with every other true proposition: no truth is contradicted by another. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 9.1) | |
| A reaction: Interesting. It resembles the rule that if you always tell the truth you don't need to remember what you said. Close to the heart of the concept of truth. Coherence and correspondence. |
| 3884 | The pragmatist does not really have a theory of truth [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: The pragmatist does not really have a theory of truth. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 9.4) |
| 12204 | The logic of metaphysical necessity is S5 [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: It is a widely accepted thesis that the logic of metaphysical necessity is S5. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], §5) | |
| A reaction: Rumfitt goes on to defend this standard view (against Dummett's defence of S4). The point, I take it, is that one can only assert that something is 'true in all possible worlds' only when the worlds are all accessible to one another. |
| 12195 | Soundness in argument varies with context, and may be achieved very informally indeed [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: Our ordinary standards for deeming arguments to be sound vary greatly from context to context. Even the package tourist's syllogism ('It's Tuesday, so this is Belgium') may meet the operative standards for soundness. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], Intro) | |
| A reaction: No doubt one could spell out the preconceptions of package tourist reasoning, and arrive at the logical form of the implication which is being offered. |
| 12199 | There is a modal element in consequence, in assessing reasoning from suppositions [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: There is a modal element in consequence, in its applicability to assessing reasoning from suppositions. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], §2) |
| 12201 | We reject deductions by bad consequence, so logical consequence can't be deduction [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: A rule is to be rejected if it enables us to deduce from some premisses a purported conclusion that does not follow from them in the broad sense. The idea that deductions answer to consequence is incomprehensible if consequence consists in deducibility. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], §2) |
| 12194 | Contradictions include 'This is red and not coloured', as well as the formal 'B and not-B' [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: Overt contradictions include formal contradictions of form 'B and not B', but I also take them to include 'This is red all over and green all over' and 'This is red and not coloured'. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], Intro) |
| 12198 | Geometrical axioms in logic are nowadays replaced by inference rules (which imply the logical truths) [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: The geometrical style of formalization of logic is now little more than a quaint anachronism, largely because it fails to show logical truths for what they are: simply by-products of rules of inference that are applicable to suppositions. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], §1) | |
| A reaction: This is the rejection of Russell-style axiom systems in favour of Gentzen-style natural deduction systems (starting from rules). Rumfitt quotes Dummett in support. |
| 3907 | Could you be intellectually acquainted with numbers, but unable to count objects? [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: Could someone have a perfect intellectual acquaintance with numbers, but be incapable of counting a flock of sheep? | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 26.6) |
| 3908 | If maths contains unprovable truths, then maths cannot be reduced to a set of proofs [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: If there can be unprovable truths of mathematics, then mathematics cannot be reduced to the proofs whereby we construct it. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 26.7) |
| 3906 | If possible worlds are needed to define properties, maybe we should abandon properties [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: If the only way of defining properties involves quantifying over possible worlds, this could be taken as another reason for abandoning properties altogether. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 26.4) |
| 14532 | A distinctive type of necessity is found in logical consequence [Rumfitt, by Hale/Hoffmann,A] |
| Full Idea: Rumfitt argues that there is a distinctive notion of necessity implicated in the notion of logical consequence. | |
| From: report of Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010]) by Bob Hale/ Aviv Hoffmann - Introduction to 'Modality' 2 |
| 12200 | A logically necessary statement need not be a priori, as it could be unknowable [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: There is no reason to suppose that any statement that is logically necessary (in the present sense) is knowable a priori. ..If a statement is logically necessary, its negation will yield a contradiction, but that does not imply that someone could know it. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], §2) | |
| A reaction: This remark is aimed at Dorothy Edgington, who holds the opposite view. Rumfitt largely defends McFetridge's view (q.v.). |
| 12193 | Logical necessity is when 'necessarily A' implies 'not-A is contradictory' [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: By the notion of 'logical necessity' I mean that there is a sense of 'necessary' for which 'It is necessary that A' implies and is implied by 'It is logically contradictory that not A'. ...From this, logical necessity is implicated in logical consequence. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], Intro) | |
| A reaction: Rumfitt expresses a commitment to classical logic at this point. We will need to be quite sure what we mean by 'contradiction', which will need a clear notion of 'truth'.... |
| 12202 | Narrow non-modal logical necessity may be metaphysical, but real logical necessity is not [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: While Fine suggests defining a narrow notion of logical necessity in terms of metaphysical necessity by 'restriction' (to logical truths that can be defined in non-modal terms), this seems unpromising for broad logical necessity, which is modal. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], §2) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] He cites Kit Fine 2002. Rumfitt glosses the non-modal definitions as purely formal. The metaphysics lurks somewhere in the proof. |
| 3888 | Hume assumes that necessity can only be de dicto, not de re [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: It was one of the assumptions of Hume's empiricism that all necessities are de dicto: i.e. they are artefacts of language. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 13.5) |
| 3903 | The conceivable can't be a test of the possible, if there are things which are possible but inconceivable [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: If there are things which are possible but inconceivable, we must abandon the view, which has had a considerable following since Descartes, that the conceivable is a test of the possible. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 25) |
| 12203 | If a world is a fully determinate way things could have been, can anyone consider such a thing? [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: A world is usually taken to be a fully determinate way that things could have been; but then one might seriously wonder whether anyone is capable of 'considering' such a thing at all. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt (Logical Necessity [2010], §4) | |
| A reaction: This has always worried me. If I say 'maybe my coat is in the car', I would hate to think that I had to be contemplating some entire possible world (including all the implications of my coat not being on the hat stand). |
| 3897 | Epistemology is about the justification of belief, not the definition of knowledge [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: In my view the concept of knowledge is of no very great interest in epistemology, which actually concerns the justification of belief. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 22) | |
| A reaction: I think this is an excellent thought. I see knowledge as slippery, and partially contextual, and I don't care whether someone precisely 'knows' something. I just want to know why they believe it. |
| 3881 | In the Cogito argument consciousness develops into self-consciousness [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: In the course of the argument the first person has acquired a character; he is not merely conscious, but self-conscious. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 4) |
| 3887 | Maybe our knowledge of truth and causation is synthetic a priori [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: 'Every event has a cause' and 'truth is correspondence to facts' are candidates for being synthetic a priori knowledge. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 13.2) |
| 3901 | Touch only seems to reveal primary qualities [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: Touch seems to deliver a purely primary-quality account of the world. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 24) | |
| A reaction: Interesting, though a little over-confident. It seems occasionally possible for touch to be an illusion. |
| 3885 | We only conceive of primary qualities as attached to secondary qualities [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: Bradley argued that we cannot conceive of primary qualities except as attached to secondary qualities. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 10.1) |
| 3910 | If primary and secondary qualities are distinct, what has the secondary qualities? [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: If primary and secondary qualities are distinct, what do secondary qualities inhere in? | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], Ch.10 n) | |
| A reaction: What is the problem? A pin causes me pain, but I know the pain isn't in the pin. It is the same with colour. It is a mental property, if you like, triggered by a wavelength of radiation. |
| 3899 | The representational theory says perceptual states are intentional states [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: The representational theory is the unsurprising view that perceptual states are intentional, like beliefs, emotions and desires. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 23.3) |
| 3898 | My belief that it will rain tomorrow can't be caused by its raining tomorrow [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: It is impossible that my present belief that it will rain tomorrow is caused by its raining tomorrow. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 22.4) | |
| A reaction: This doesn't demolish a causal account of belief. It would be very surprising if I were to believe it was going to rain tomorrow for no cause whatsoever. That would be irrational. |
| 3880 | Logical positivism avoids scepticism, by closing the gap between evidence and conclusion [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: If the evidence for p is q, and that is the only evidence there is or can be, then 'p' means q. Hence there is no gap between evidence and conclusion, and the sceptical problem does not arise. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 3.2) |
| 3878 | Why should you believe someone who says there are no truths? [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is 'merely relative', is asking you not to believe him. So don't. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 1.1) |
| 3892 | Every event having a cause, and every event being determined by its cause, are not the same [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: To say that every event has a cause is one thing; to say that every event is determined by its cause is quite another thing. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 17.1) |
| 3911 | The very concept of a substance denies the possibility of mutual interaction and dependence [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: It is often held to be a consequence of the rationalist conception of substance, that separate substances cannot interact (since causal interaction is a form of mutual dependence). | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], Ch.16 n) | |
| A reaction: Yes, substances seem incapable of interaction, just as Leibniz argues that perfections could never interact. They are too pure. |
| 3882 | Wittgenstein makes it impossible to build foundations from something that is totally private [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: Wittgenstein's point is that if I search for foundations in what can only be known to me, then the belief that I have discovered those foundations will also fall victim to Descartes' demon. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 5.3) | |
| A reaction: Why should foundations based in wider society or a language community fare any better? Getting a lot of people to agree won't trouble the demon too much. Flat earthers. |
| 3896 | Any social theory of morality has the problem of the 'free rider', who only pretends to join in [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: Any attempt to provide a social justification of morality runs the risk of the 'free rider' - one who pretends to play the game in order to enjoy the fruits of it. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 20.6) |
| 3049 | The chief good is indifference to what lies midway between virtue and vice [Ariston, by Diog. Laertius] |
| Full Idea: The chief good is to live in perfect indifference to all those things which are of an intermediate character between virtue and vice. | |
| From: report of Ariston (fragments/reports [c.250 BCE]) by Diogenes Laertius - Lives of Eminent Philosophers 07.2.1 |
| 3549 | Ariston says rules are useless for the virtuous and the non-virtuous [Ariston, by Annas] |
| Full Idea: Ariston says that rules are useless if you are virtuous, and useless if you are not. | |
| From: report of Ariston (fragments/reports [c.250 BCE]) by Julia Annas - The Morality of Happiness 2.4 |
| 3886 | Membership is the greatest source of obligation [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: Membership is the greatest source of obligation. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 11.2) | |
| A reaction: An interesting and rather Aristotelian idea. The alternative is individual debt or obligation. |
| 3895 | The categorical imperative is not just individual, but can be used for negotiations between strangers [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: The categorical imperative is also an instrument of negotiation and compromise between strangers, through which they can rise out of enmity and confront each other as equals. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 20.6) |
| 3890 | 'Cause' used to just mean any valid explanation [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: Traditionally (before Leibniz and Spinoza) the world 'cause' signified any valid explanation. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 14) |
| 3904 | Measuring space requires no movement while I do it [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: I can measure the length of something only if I know that it has not moved between the moment when I locate one end of it and the moment when I locate the other. | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 25.3) | |
| A reaction: A nice example of how even simple propositions have many presuppositions. |
| 3905 | 'Existence' is not a predicate of 'man', but of the concept of man, saying it has at least one instance [Scruton] |
| Full Idea: When I say that a man exists, Frege argues, I do not predicate existence of a man, but rather of the concept man: I say the concept has at least one instance (and existence is a predicate of predicates). | |
| From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 26.2) |