|
18948
|
There is an object for every set of properties (some of which exist, and others don't) [Parsons,T, by Sawyer]
|
|
Full Idea:
According to Terence Parsons, there is an object corresponding to every set of properties. To some of those sets of properties there corresponds an object that exists, and to others there corresponds an object that does not exist (a nonexistent object).
|
|
From:
report of Terence Parsons (Nonexistent Objects [1980]) by Sarah Sawyer - Empty Names 5
|
|
A reaction:
This I take to be the main source of the modern revival of Meinong's notorious view of objects (attacked by Russell). I always find the thought 'a round square is square' to be true, and in need of a truthmaker. But must a round square be non-triangular?
|
|
19539
|
If knowledge is unanalysable, that makes justification more important [Dougherty/Rysiew]
|
|
Full Idea:
If knowledge is indeed unanalyzable, that could be seen as a liberation of justification to assume importance in its own right.
|
|
From:
Dougherty,T/Rysiew,P (What is Knowledge-First Epistemology? [2014], p.11)
|
|
A reaction:
[They cite Kvanvig 2003:192 and Greco 2010:9-] See Scruton's Idea 3897. I suspect that we should just give up discussing 'knowledge', which is a woolly and uninformative term, and focus on where the real epistemological action is.
|
|
22200
|
If you eliminate the impossible, the truth will remain, even if it is weird [Conan Doyle]
|
|
Full Idea:
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
|
|
From:
Arthur Conan Doyle (The Sign of Four [1890], Ch. 6)
|
|
A reaction:
A beautiful statement, by Sherlock Holmes, of Eliminative Induction. It is obviously not true, of course. Many options may still face you after you have eliminated what is actually impossible.
|