|
17263
|
Why do rationalists accept Sufficient Reason, when it denies the existence of fundamental facts? [Correia/Schnieder]
|
|
Full Idea:
What is most puzzling about the rationalist tradition is the steadfast certainty with which the Principle of Sufficient Reason was often accepted, since it in effect denies that there are fundamental facts.
|
|
From:
Correia,F/Schnieder,B (Grounding: an opinionated introduction [2012], 2.2)
|
|
A reaction:
A very simple and interesting observation. The principle implies either a circle of reasons, or an infinite regress of reasons. Nothing can be labelled as 'primitive' or 'foundational' or 'given'. The principle is irrational!
|
|
7548
|
Classes, grouped by a convenient property, are logical constructions [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
Classes or series of particulars, collected together on account of some property which makes it convenient to be able to speak of them as wholes, are what I call logical constructions or symbolic fictions.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (The Ultimate Constituents of Matter [1915], p.125)
|
|
A reaction:
When does a construction become 'logical' instead of arbitrary? What is it about a property that makes it 'convenient'? At this point Russell seems to have built his ontology on classes, and the edifice was crumbling, thanks to Wittgenstein.
|
|
17270
|
Is existential dependence by grounding, or do grounding claims arise from existential dependence? [Correia/Schnieder]
|
|
Full Idea:
We may take existential dependence to be a relation induced by certain cases of grounding, but one may also think that facts about existential dependence are prior to corresponding ground claims, and in fact ground those claims.
|
|
From:
Correia,F/Schnieder,B (Grounding: an opinionated introduction [2012], 4.3)
|
|
A reaction:
I would vote for grounding, since dependence seems more abstract, and seems to demand explanation, whereas grounding seems more like a feature of reality, and to resist further intrinsic explanation (on the whole).
|
|
17267
|
The identity of two facts may depend on how 'fine-grained' we think facts are [Correia/Schnieder]
|
|
Full Idea:
There is a disagreement on the issue of factual identity, concerning the 'granularity' of facts, the question of how fine-grained they are.
|
|
From:
Correia,F/Schnieder,B (Grounding: an opinionated introduction [2012], 3.3)
|
|
A reaction:
If they are very fine-grained, then no two descriptions of a supposed fact will capture the same details. If we go broadbrush, facts become fuzzy and less helpful. 'Fact' was never going to be a clear term.
|
|
7549
|
If my body literally lost its mind, the object seen when I see a flash would still exist [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
My meaning may be made plainer by saying that if my body could remain in exactly the same state in which it is, though my mind had ceased to exist, precisely that object which I now see when I see a flash would exist, though I should not see it.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (The Ultimate Constituents of Matter [1915], p.126)
|
|
A reaction:
Zombies, 70 years before Robert Kirk! Sense-data are physical. It is interesting to see a philosopher as committed to empiricism, anti-spiritualism and the priority of science as this, still presenting an essentially dualist picture of perception.
|
|
7546
|
A man is a succession of momentary men, bound by continuity and causation [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
The real man, I believe, however the police may swear to his identity, is really a series of momentary men, each different one from the other, and bound together, not by a numerical identity, but by continuity and certain instrinsic causal laws.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (The Ultimate Constituents of Matter [1915], p.124)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to be in the tradition of Locke and Parfit, and also follows the temporal-slices idea of physical objects. Personally I take a more physical view of things, and think the police are probably more reliable than Bertrand Russell.
|
|
7550
|
We could probably, in principle, infer minds from brains, and brains from minds [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
It seems not improbable that if we had sufficient knowledge we could infer the state of a man's mind from the state of his brain, or the state of his brain from the state of his mind.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (The Ultimate Constituents of Matter [1915], p.131)
|
|
A reaction:
This strikes me as being a very good summary of the claim that mind is reducible to brain, which is the essence of physicalism. Had he been born a little later, Russell would have taken a harder line with physicalism.
|
|
7552
|
Six dimensions are needed for a particular, three within its own space, and three to locate that space [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
The world of particulars is a six-dimensional space, where six co-ordinates will be required to assign the position of any particular, three to assign its position in its own space, and three to assign the position of its space among the other spaces.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (The Ultimate Constituents of Matter [1915], p.134)
|
|
A reaction:
Not a proposal that has caught on. One might connect the idea with the notion of 'frames of reference' in Einstein's Special Theory. Inside a frame of reference, three co-ordinates are needed; but where is the frame of reference?
|