Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Dthat', 'The Impossibility of Superdupervenience' and 'Space, Knowledge and Power (interview)'

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

---

6 ideas

1. Philosophy / C. History of Philosophy / 4. Later European Philosophy / c. Eighteenth century philosophy

15045	The big issue since the eighteenth century has been: what is Reason? Its effect, limits and dangers? [Foucault]
	Full Idea: I think the central issue of philosophy and critical thought since the eighteenth century has always been, still is, and will, I hope, remain the question: What is this Reason that we use? What are its historical effects? What are its limits and dangers?
	From: Michel Foucault (Space, Knowledge and Power (interview) [1982], p.358)
	A reaction: One can hardly deny the fairness of the question, but I hope that won't prevent us from trying to be rational. Maybe logicians do a better job of clarifying reason than the political and historical speculations of Foucault?

7. Existence / C. Structure of Existence / 3. Levels of Reality

16062	A necessary relation between fact-levels seems to be a further irreducible fact [Lynch/Glasgow]
	Full Idea: It seems unavoidable that the facts about logically necessary relations between levels of facts are themselves logically distinct further facts, irreducible to the microphysical facts.
	From: Lynch,MP/Glasgow,JM (The Impossibility of Superdupervenience [2003], C)
	A reaction: I'm beginning to think that rejecting every theory of reality that is proposed by carefully exposing some infinite regress hidden in it is a rather lazy way to do philosophy. Almost as bad as rejecting anything if it can't be defined.

7. Existence / C. Structure of Existence / 5. Supervenience / c. Significance of supervenience

16061	If some facts 'logically supervene' on some others, they just redescribe them, adding nothing [Lynch/Glasgow]
	Full Idea: Logical supervenience, restricted to individuals, seems to imply strong reduction. It is said that where the B-facts logically supervene on the A-facts, the B-facts simply re-describe what the A-facts describe, and the B-facts come along 'for free'.
	From: Lynch,MP/Glasgow,JM (The Impossibility of Superdupervenience [2003], C)
	A reaction: This seems to be taking 'logically' to mean 'analytically'. Presumably an entailment is logically supervenient on its premisses, and may therefore be very revealing, even if some people think such things are analytic.

7. Existence / D. Theories of Reality / 6. Physicalism

16060	Nonreductive materialism says upper 'levels' depend on lower, but don't 'reduce' [Lynch/Glasgow]
	Full Idea: The root intuition behind nonreductive materialism is that reality is composed of ontologically distinct layers or levels. …The upper levels depend on the physical without reducing to it.
	From: Lynch,MP/Glasgow,JM (The Impossibility of Superdupervenience [2003], B)
	A reaction: A nice clear statement of a view which I take to be false. This relationship is the sort of thing that drives people fishing for an account of it to use the word 'supervenience', which just says two things seem to hang out together. Fluffy materialism.

16064	The hallmark of physicalism is that each causal power has a base causal power under it [Lynch/Glasgow]
	Full Idea: Jessica Wilson (1999) says what makes physicalist accounts different from emergentism etc. is that each individual causal power associated with a supervenient property is numerically identical with a causal power associated with its base property.
	From: Lynch,MP/Glasgow,JM (The Impossibility of Superdupervenience [2003], n 11)
	A reaction: Hence the key thought in so-called (serious, rather than self-evident) 'emergentism' is so-called 'downward causation', which I take to be an idle daydream.

19. Language / B. Reference / 3. Direct Reference / b. Causal reference

14080	Are causal descriptions part of the causal theory of reference, or are they just metasemantic? [Kaplan, by Schaffer,J]
	Full Idea: Kaplan notes that the causal theory of reference can be understood in two quite different ways, as part of the semantics (involving descriptions of causal processes), or as metasemantics, explaining why a term has the referent it does.
	From: report of David Kaplan (Dthat [1970]) by Jonathan Schaffer - Deflationary Metaontology of Thomasson 1
	A reaction: [Kaplan 'Afterthought' 1989] The theory tends to be labelled as 'direct' rather than as 'causal' these days, but causal chains are still at the heart of the story (even if more diffused socially). Nice question. Kaplan takes the meta- version as orthodox.