|
8983
|
If 'red' is vague, then membership of the set of red things is vague, so there is no set of red things [Sainsbury]
|
|
Full Idea:
Sets have sharp boundaries, or are sharp objects; an object either definitely belongs to a set, or it does not. But 'red' is vague; there objects which are neither definitely red nor definitely not red. Hence there is no set of red things.
|
|
From:
Mark Sainsbury (Concepts without Boundaries [1990], §2)
|
|
A reaction:
Presumably that will entail that there IS a set of things which can be described as 'definitely red'. If we describe something as 'definitely having a hint of red about it', will that put it in a set? In fact will the applicability of 'definitely' do?
|
|
8986
|
We should abandon classifying by pigeon-holes, and classify around paradigms [Sainsbury]
|
|
Full Idea:
We must reject the classical picture of classification by pigeon-holes, and think in other terms: classifying can be, and often is, clustering round paradigms.
|
|
From:
Mark Sainsbury (Concepts without Boundaries [1990], §8)
|
|
A reaction:
His conclusion to a discussion of the problem of vagueness, where it is identified with concepts which have no boundaries. Pigeon-holes are a nice exemplar of the Enlightenment desire to get everything right. I prefer Aristotle's categories, Idea 3311.
|
|
7720
|
Two things can only resemble one another in some respect, and that may reintroduce a universal [Lowe]
|
|
Full Idea:
A problem for resemblance nominalism is that in saying that two particulars 'resemble' one another, it is necessary to specify in what respect they do so (e.g. colour, shape, size), and this threatens to reintroduce what appears to be talk of universals.
|
|
From:
E.J. Lowe (Locke on Human Understanding [1995], Ch.7)
|
|
A reaction:
We see resemblance between faces instantly, long before we can specify the 'respects' of the resemblance. This supports the Humean hard-wired view of resemblance, rather than some appeal to Platonic universals.
|
|
8984
|
If concepts are vague, people avoid boundaries, can't spot them, and don't want them [Sainsbury]
|
|
Full Idea:
Vague concepts are boundaryless, ...and the manifestations are an unwillingness to draw any such boundaries, the impossibility of identifying such boundaries, and needlessness and even disutility of such boundaries.
|
|
From:
Mark Sainsbury (Concepts without Boundaries [1990], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
People have a very fine-tuned notion of whether the sharp boundary of a concept is worth discussing. The interesting exception are legal people, who are often forced to find precision where everyone else hates it. Who deserves to inherit the big house?
|
|
8985
|
Boundaryless concepts tend to come in pairs, such as child/adult, hot/cold [Sainsbury]
|
|
Full Idea:
Boundaryless concepts tend to come in systems of contraries: opposed pairs like child/adult, hot/cold, weak/strong, true/false, and complex systems of colour terms. ..Only a contrast with 'adult' will show what 'child' excludes.
|
|
From:
Mark Sainsbury (Concepts without Boundaries [1990], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
This might be expected. It all comes down to the sorites problem, of when one thing turns into something else. If it won't merge into another category, then presumably the isolated concept stays applicable (until reality terminates it? End of sheep..).
|
|
7714
|
Personal identity is a problem across time (diachronic) and at an instant (synchronic) [Lowe]
|
|
Full Idea:
There is the question of the identity of a person over or across time ('diachronic' personal identity), and there is also the question of what makes for personal identity at a time ('synchronic' personal identity).
|
|
From:
E.J. Lowe (Locke on Human Understanding [1995], Ch.5)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to me to be the first and most important distinction in the philosophy of personal identity, and they regularly get run together. Locke, for example, has an account of synchronic identity, which is often ignored. It applies to objects too.
|
|
7715
|
Mentalese isn't a language, because it isn't conventional, or a means of public communication [Lowe]
|
|
Full Idea:
'Mentalese' would be neither conventional nor a means of public communication so that even to call it a language is seriously misleading.
|
|
From:
E.J. Lowe (Locke on Human Understanding [1995], Ch.7)
|
|
A reaction:
It is, however, supposed to contain symbolic representations which are then used as tokens for computation, so it seems close to a language, if (for example) symbolic logic or mathematics were accepted as languages. But who understands it?
|