Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Dthat', 'Letters to Regius' and 'On the Source of Necessity'

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

---

6 ideas

4. Formal Logic / D. Modal Logic ML / 3. Modal Logic Systems / g. System S4

15102	S4 says there must be some necessary truths (the actual ones, of which there is at least one) [Cameron]
	Full Idea: S4 says there must be some necessary truths, because the actual necessary truths must be necessary. (It says if there are some actual necessary truths then that is so - but the S4 axiom is an actual necessary truth, if true).
	From: Ross P. Cameron (On the Source of Necessity [2010], 2)

9. Objects / D. Essence of Objects / 15. Against Essentialism

12251	Substantial forms are not understood, and explain nothing [Descartes]
	Full Idea: Clearly no explanation can be given by these substantial forms for any natural action, since their defenders admit that they are occult and that they do not understand them themselves, ...so they explain nothing.
	From: René Descartes (Letters to Regius [1642], 1642.01), quoted by David S. Oderberg - Real Essentialism 267 n5
	A reaction: [Oderberg gives refs for attack by Locke and Hume, p.66] Descartes' target is Aristotle's hylomorphism. The problem seems to be understanding what Aristotle meant, which is much more than mere 'shape'. More like 'controlling principle'.

10. Modality / C. Sources of Modality / 1. Sources of Necessity

15103	Blackburn fails to show that the necessary cannot be grounded in the contingent [Cameron]
	Full Idea: I conclude that Blackburn has not shown that any grounding of the necessary in the contingent (the Contingency Horn of his dilemma) is doomed to failure.
	From: Ross P. Cameron (On the Source of Necessity [2010], 2)
	A reaction: [You must read the article for details of Cameron's argument!] He goes on to also reject the Necessity Horn (that there is a regress if necessities must rely on necessities).

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.

27. Natural Reality / D. Time / 1. Nature of Time / f. Eternalism

15104	The 'moving spotlight' theory makes one time privileged, while all times are on a par ontologically [Cameron]
	Full Idea: What seems so wrong about the 'moving spotlight' theory is that here one time is privileged, but all the times are on a par ontologically.
	From: Ross P. Cameron (On the Source of Necessity [2010], 4)
	A reaction: The whole thing is baffling, but this looks like a good point. All our intuitions make presentism (there's only the present) look like a better theory than the moving spotlight (that the present is just 'special').

29. Religion / B. Monotheistic Religion / 4. Christianity / c. Angels

16772	An angelic mind would not experience pain, even when connected to a human body [Descartes, by Pasnau]
	Full Idea: Descartes points out that an angelic mind, even if causally connected to a human body, would not experience the same sort of bodily sensations; it would, instead, simply observe flesh being torn, like a piece of paper.
	From: report of René Descartes (Letters to Regius [1642], III:493) by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 25.6
	A reaction: Does that mean that the angel could not have the experience even if it wanted to have it. So they can't pick up a cup either? So they can't make themselves known to us, even if they are desperate to? So the Annunciation never happened?