Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'works', 'Proper Names' and 'Mental Files in Flux'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these texts


17 ideas

5. Theory of Logic / A. Overview of Logic / 4. Pure Logic
A train of reasoning must be treated as all happening simultaneously [Recanati]
     Full Idea: For logic purposes, a train of reasoning has to be construed as synchronic.
     From: François Recanati (Mental Files in Flux [2016], 5.2)
     A reaction: If we are looking for a gulf between logic and the real world this is a factor to be considered, along with Nietzsche's observation about necessary simplification. [ref to Kaplan 'Afterthoughts' 1989, 584-5]
5. Theory of Logic / F. Referring in Logic / 1. Naming / b. Names as descriptive
We don't normally think of names as having senses (e.g. we don't give definitions of them) [Searle]
     Full Idea: If Tully=Cicero is synthetic, the names must have different senses, which seems implausible, for we don't normally think of proper names as having senses in the way that predicates do (we do not, e.g., give definitions of proper names).
     From: John Searle (Proper Names [1958], p.89)
     A reaction: It is probably necessary to prize apart the question of whether Tully 'has' (intrinsically) a sense, from whether we think of Tully in that way. Stacks of books have appeared about this one, since Kripke.
How can a proper name be correlated with its object if it hasn't got a sense? [Searle]
     Full Idea: It seems that a proper name could not have a reference unless it did have a sense, for how, unless the name has a sense, is it to be correlated with the object?
     From: John Searle (Proper Names [1958], p.91)
     A reaction: This might (just) be the most important question ever asked in modern philosophy, since it provoked Kripke into answering it, by giving a social, causal, externalist account of how names (and hence lots of language) actually work. But Searle has a point.
'Aristotle' means more than just 'an object that was christened "Aristotle"' [Searle]
     Full Idea: Aristotle being identical with an object that was originally christened will not suffice, for the force of "Aristotle" is greater than the force of 'identical with an object named "Aristotle"', for not just any object named "Aristotle" will do.
     From: John Searle (Proper Names [1958], p.93)
     A reaction: This anticipates Kripke's proposal to base reference on baptism. I remain unsure about how rigid a designation of Aristotle could be, in a possible world where his father died young, and he became an illiterate soldier who hates philosophy.
Reference for proper names presupposes a set of uniquely referring descriptions [Searle]
     Full Idea: To use a proper name referringly is to presuppose the truth of certain uniquely referring descriptive statements. ...Names are pegs on which to hang descriptions.
     From: John Searle (Proper Names [1958], p.94)
     A reaction: This 'cluster' view of Searle's has become notorious, but I think one could at least try to mount a defence. The objection to Searle is that none of the descriptions are necessary, unlike just being the named object.
Proper names are logically connected with their characteristics, in a loose way [Searle]
     Full Idea: If asked whether or not proper names are logically connected with characteristics of the object to which they refer, the answer is 'yes, in a loose sort of way'.
     From: John Searle (Proper Names [1958], p.96)
     A reaction: It seems to be inviting trouble to assert that a connection is both 'logical' and 'loose'. Clearly Searle has been reading too much later Wittgenstein. This is probably the weakest point in Searle's proposal, which brought a landslide of criticism.
6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 1. Mathematics
Hilbert wanted to prove the consistency of all of mathematics (which realists take for granted) [Hilbert, by Friend]
     Full Idea: Hilbert wanted to derive ideal mathematics from the secure, paradox-free, finite mathematics (known as 'Hilbert's Programme'). ...Note that for the realist consistency is not something we need to prove; it is a precondition of thought.
     From: report of David Hilbert (works [1900], 6.7) by Michèle Friend - Introducing the Philosophy of Mathematics
     A reaction: I am an intuitive realist, though I am not so sure about that on cautious reflection. Compare the claims that there are reasons or causes for everything. Reality cannot contain contradicitions (can it?). Contradictions would be our fault.
6. Mathematics / C. Sources of Mathematics / 7. Formalism
The grounding of mathematics is 'in the beginning was the sign' [Hilbert]
     Full Idea: The solid philosophical attitude that I think is required for the grounding of pure mathematics is this: In the beginning was the sign.
     From: David Hilbert (works [1900]), quoted by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Ch.6
     A reaction: Why did people invent those particular signs? Presumably they were meant to designate something, in the world or in our experience.
Hilbert substituted a syntactic for a semantic account of consistency [Hilbert, by George/Velleman]
     Full Idea: Hilbert replaced a semantic construal of inconsistency (that the theory entails a statement that is necessarily false) by a syntactic one (that the theory formally derives the statement (0 =1 ∧ 0 not-= 1).
     From: report of David Hilbert (works [1900]) by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Ch.6
     A reaction: Finding one particular clash will pinpoint the notion of inconsistency, but it doesn't seem to define what it means, since the concept has very wide application.
6. Mathematics / C. Sources of Mathematics / 8. Finitism
Hilbert aimed to prove the consistency of mathematics finitely, to show infinities won't produce contradictions [Hilbert, by George/Velleman]
     Full Idea: Hilbert's project was to establish the consistency of classical mathematics using just finitary means, to convince all parties that no contradictions will follow from employing the infinitary notions and reasoning.
     From: report of David Hilbert (works [1900]) by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Ch.6
     A reaction: This is the project which was badly torpedoed by Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem.
18. Thought / A. Modes of Thought / 9. Indexical Thought
Indexicality is not just a feature of language; examples show it also occurs in thought [Recanati]
     Full Idea: People once took indexicality to be exclusively a property of language, ....but a series of examples seemed to establish that the thought expressed by uttering an indexical sentence is itself indexical (and is thus 'essential').
     From: François Recanati (Mental Files in Flux [2016], 6.1)
     A reaction: Perry's example of not realising it is him leaking the sugar in a supermarket is the best known example. Was this a key moment for realising that philosophy of thought is (pace Dummett) more important than philosophy of language?
How can we communicate indexical thoughts to people not in the right context? [Recanati]
     Full Idea: Indexical thoughts create an obvious problem with regard to communication. How can we manage to communicate such thoughts to those who are not in the right context?
     From: François Recanati (Mental Files in Flux [2016], 7.1)
     A reaction: One answer is that you often cannot communicate them. If I write on a wall 'I am here now', that doesn't tell the next passer-by very much. But 'it's raining here' said in a telephone call works fine - if you know the location of the caller.
18. Thought / B. Mechanics of Thought / 5. Mental Files
Mental files are concepts, which are either collections or (better) containers [Recanati]
     Full Idea: Mental files are entries in the mental encyclopedia, that is, concepts. Some, following Grice, say they are information collections, but I think of them as containers. Collections are determined by their elements, but containers have independent identity.
     From: François Recanati (Mental Files in Flux [2016], Pref)
     A reaction: [compressed] [Grice reference is 'Vacuous Names' (1969)] I agree with Recanati. The point is that you can invoke a file by a label, even when you don't know what the content is.
The Frege case of believing a thing is both F and not-F is explained by separate mental files [Recanati]
     Full Idea: Frege's Constraint says if a subject believes an object is both F and not-F (as in 'Frege cases'), then the subject thinks of that object under distinct modes of presentation. Having distinct mental files of the object is sufficient to generate this.
     From: François Recanati (Mental Files in Flux [2016], Pref)
     A reaction: [compressed] When you look at how many semantic puzzles (notably from Frege and Kripke) are solved by the existence of labelled mental files, the case for them is overwhelming.
19. Language / B. Reference / 4. Descriptive Reference / b. Reference by description
A linguistic expression refers to what its associated mental file refers to [Recanati]
     Full Idea: Mental files determine the reference of linguistic expressions: an expression refers to what the mental file associated with it refers to (at the time of tokening).
     From: François Recanati (Mental Files in Flux [2016], 5)
     A reaction: Invites the question of how mental files manage to refer, prior to the arrival of a linguistic expression. A mental file is usually fully of descriptions, but it might be no more than a label.
19. Language / D. Propositions / 4. Mental Propositions
There are speakers' thoughts and hearers' thoughts, but no further thought attached to the utterance [Recanati]
     Full Idea: There is the speaker's thought and the thought formed by the hearer. That is all there is. We don't need an additional entity, the thought expressed by the utterance.
     From: François Recanati (Mental Files in Flux [2016], 7.2)
     A reaction: This fits my view of propositions nicely. They are the two 'thoughts'. The notion of some further abstract 'proposition' with its own mode of independent existence strikes me as ontologically absurd.
19. Language / F. Communication / 5. Pragmatics / a. Contextual meaning
The Naive view of communication is that hearers acquire exactly the thoughts of the speaker [Recanati]
     Full Idea: The Naive Conception of Communication rests on the idea that communication is the replication of thoughts: the thought the hearer entertains when he understands what the speaker is saying is the very thought which the speaker expressed.
     From: François Recanati (Mental Files in Flux [2016], 7.1)
     A reaction: It is hard to believe that any modern thinker would believe such a view, given holistic views of language etc.