|
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.
|
|
9212
|
Possible states of affairs are not propositions; a proposition can't be a state of affairs! [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
Possible states of affairs have often been taken to be propositions, but this cannot be correct, since any possible state of affairs is possibly a state of affairs, but no proposition is possibly a state of affairs.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (The Problem of Possibilia [2003], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
The point is, presumably, that the state of affairs cannot be the proposition itself, but (at least) what the proposition refers to. I can't see any objection to that.
|
|
9213
|
The actual world is a possible world, so we can't define possible worlds as 'what might have been' [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
A possible world can't be defined (by Stalnaker and Plantinga) as a way the world might have been, because a possible world is possibly the world, yet no way the world might have been is possibly the world.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (The Problem of Possibilia [2003], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
His point is that any definition of a possible world must cover the actual world, because that is one of them. 'Might have been' is not applicable to the actual world. It seems a fairly important starting point for discussion of possible worlds.
|
|
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.
|
|
4688
|
We imagine small and large objects scaled to the same size, suggesting a fixed capacity for imagination [Lavers]
|
|
Full Idea:
If we think of a pea, and then of the Eiffel Tower, they seem to occupy the same space in our consciousness, suggesting that we scale our images to fit the available hardware, just as computer imagery is limited by the screen and memory available.
|
|
From:
Michael Lavers (talk [2003]), quoted by PG - Db (ideas)
|
|
A reaction:
Nice point. It is especially good because it reinforces a physicalist view of the mind from introspection, where most other evidence is external observation of brains (as Nietzsche reinforces determinism by introspection).
|
|
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?
|