|
13857
|
Truth-functional possibilities include the irrelevant, which is a mistake [Edgington]
|
|
Full Idea:
How likely is a fair die landing on an even number to land six? My approach is, assume an even number, so three possibilities, one a six, so 'one third'; the truth-functional approach is it's true if it is not-even or six, so 'two-thirds'.
|
|
From:
Dorothy Edgington (Do Conditionals Have Truth Conditions? [1986], 3)
|
|
A reaction:
The point is that in the truth-functional approach, if the die lands not-even, then the conditional comes out as true, when she says it should be irrelevant. She seems to be right about this.
|
|
13853
|
It is a mistake to think that conditionals are statements about how the world is [Edgington]
|
|
Full Idea:
The mistake philosophers have made, in trying to understand the conditional, is to assume that its function is to make a statement about how the world is (or how other possible worlds are related to it), true or false, as the case may be.
|
|
From:
Dorothy Edgington (Do Conditionals Have Truth Conditions? [1986], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
'If pigs could fly we would never catch them' may not be about the world, but 'if you press this switch the light comes on' seems to be. Actually even the first one is about the world. I've an inkling that Edgington is wrong about this. Powers!
|
|
13854
|
Conditionals express what would be the outcome, given some supposition [Edgington]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is often necessary to suppose (or assume) that some epistemic possibility is true, and to consider what else would be the case, or would be likely to be the case, given this supposition. The conditional expresses the outcome of such thought processes.
|
|
From:
Dorothy Edgington (Do Conditionals Have Truth Conditions? [1986], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the basic Edgington view. It seems to involve an active thought process, and imagination, rather than being the static semantic relations offered by possible worlds analyses. True conditionals state relationships in the world.
|
|
16975
|
Essences are used to explain natural kinds, modality, and causal powers [Tahko]
|
|
Full Idea:
Essences are supposed to do a lot of explanatory work: natural kinds can be identified in terms of their essences, metaphysical modality can be reduced to essence, the causal power of objects can be explained with the help of essence.
|
|
From:
Tuomas E. Tahko (The Epistemology of Essence (draft) [2013], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
Natural kinds and modality are OK with me, but I'm dubious about the third one. If an essence explains something's causal powers, I have no idea what an essence might be. Essence are largely characterised in terms of causal powers.
|
|
4366
|
We can't accept Aristotle's naturalism about persons, because it is normative and unscientific [Williams,B, by Hursthouse]
|
|
Full Idea:
Williams has expressed pessimism about the project of Aristotelian naturalism on the grounds that his conception of nature, and thereby of human nature, was normative, and that, in a scientific age, this is not a conception that we can take on board.
|
|
From:
report of Bernard Williams (works [1971]) by Rosalind Hursthouse - On Virtue Ethics Ch.11
|
|
A reaction:
I think there is a compromise here. The existentialist denial of intrinsic human nature seems daft, but Aristotelians must grasp the enormous flexibility that is possible to human behaviour because of the open nature of rationality.
|
|
16977
|
If essence is modal and laws are necessary, essentialist knowledge is found by scientists [Tahko]
|
|
Full Idea:
If essence is conceived in terms of modality and the laws of nature are metaphysically necessary, it seems that the laws of nature constitute essentialist knowledge, so the discovery of essences is mostly due to scientists.
|
|
From:
Tuomas E. Tahko (The Epistemology of Essence (draft) [2013], 2.1)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems muddled to me. The idea that the laws themselves are essences is way off target. No one thinks all knowledge of necessities is essentialist. Mumford, for example, doesn't even believe in laws.
|