16 ideas
| 23367 | Even pointing a finger should only be done for a reason [Epictetus] |
| Full Idea: Philosophy says it is not right even to stretch out a finger without some reason. | |
| From: Epictetus (fragments/reports [c.57], 15) | |
| A reaction: The key point here is that philosophy concerns action, an idea on which Epictetus is very keen. He rather despise theory. This idea perfectly sums up the concept of the wholly rational life (which no rational person would actually want to live!). |
| 18823 | To say there could have been people who don't exist, but deny those possible things, rejects Barcan [Stalnaker, by Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: Stalnaker holds that there could have been people who do not actually exist, but he denies that there are things that could have been those people. That is, he denies the unrestricted validity of the Barcan Formula. | |
| From: report of Robert C. Stalnaker (Counterparts and Identity [1987]) by Ian Rumfitt - The Boundary Stones of Thought 6.2 | |
| A reaction: And quite right too, I should have thought. As they say, Jack Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe might have had a child, but the idea that we should accept some entity which might have been that child but wasn't sounds like nonsense. Except as fiction….. |
| 10482 | The logic of ZF is classical first-order predicate logic with identity [Boolos] |
| Full Idea: The logic of ZF Set Theory is classical first-order predicate logic with identity. | |
| From: George Boolos (Must We Believe in Set Theory? [1997], p.121) | |
| A reaction: This logic seems to be unable to deal with very large cardinals, precisely those that are implied by set theory, so there is some sort of major problem hovering here. Boolos is fairly neutral. |
| 10492 | A few axioms of set theory 'force themselves on us', but most of them don't [Boolos] |
| Full Idea: Maybe the axioms of extensionality and the pair set axiom 'force themselves on us' (Gödel's phrase), but I am not convinced about the axioms of infinity, union, power or replacement. | |
| From: George Boolos (Must We Believe in Set Theory? [1997], p.130) | |
| A reaction: Boolos is perfectly happy with basic set theory, but rather dubious when very large cardinals come into the picture. |
| 10485 | Naïve sets are inconsistent: there is no set for things that do not belong to themselves [Boolos] |
| Full Idea: The naïve view of set theory (that any zero or more things form a set) is natural, but inconsistent: the things that do not belong to themselves are some things that do not form a set. | |
| From: George Boolos (Must We Believe in Set Theory? [1997], p.127) | |
| A reaction: As clear a summary of Russell's Paradox as you could ever hope for. |
| 10484 | The iterative conception says sets are formed at stages; some are 'earlier', and must be formed first [Boolos] |
| Full Idea: According to the iterative conception, every set is formed at some stage. There is a relation among stages, 'earlier than', which is transitive. A set is formed at a stage if and only if its members are all formed before that stage. | |
| From: George Boolos (Must We Believe in Set Theory? [1997], p.126) | |
| A reaction: He gives examples of the early stages, and says the conception is supposed to 'justify' Zermelo set theory. It is also supposed to make the axioms 'natural', rather than just being selected for convenience. And it is consistent. |
| 10491 | Infinite natural numbers is as obvious as infinite sentences in English [Boolos] |
| Full Idea: The existence of infinitely many natural numbers seems to me no more troubling than that of infinitely many computer programs or sentences of English. There is, for example, no longest sentence, since any number of 'very's can be inserted. | |
| From: George Boolos (Must We Believe in Set Theory? [1997], p.129) | |
| A reaction: If you really resisted an infinity of natural numbers, presumably you would also resist an actual infinity of 'very's. The fact that it is unclear what could ever stop a process doesn't guarantee that the process is actually endless. |
| 10483 | Mathematics and science do not require very high orders of infinity [Boolos] |
| Full Idea: To the best of my knowledge nothing in mathematics or science requires the existence of very high orders of infinity. | |
| From: George Boolos (Must We Believe in Set Theory? [1997], p.122) | |
| A reaction: He is referring to particular high orders of infinity implied by set theory. Personally I want to wield Ockham's Razor. Is being implied by set theory a sufficient reason to accept such outrageous entities into our ontology? |
| 10490 | Mathematics isn't surprising, given that we experience many objects as abstract [Boolos] |
| Full Idea: It is no surprise that we should be able to reason mathematically about many of the things we experience, for they are already 'abstract'. | |
| From: George Boolos (Must We Believe in Set Theory? [1997], p.129) | |
| A reaction: He has just given a list of exemplary abstract objects (Idea 10489), but I think there is a more interesting idea here - that our experience of actual physical objects is to some extent abstract, as soon as it is conceptualised. |
| 10488 | It is lunacy to think we only see ink-marks, and not word-types [Boolos] |
| Full Idea: It's a kind of lunacy to think that sound scientific philosophy demands that we think that we see ink-tracks but not words, i.e. word-types. | |
| From: George Boolos (Must We Believe in Set Theory? [1997], p.128) | |
| A reaction: This seems to link him with Armstrong's mockery of 'ostrich nominalism'. There seems to be some ambiguity with the word 'see' in this disagreement. When we look at very ancient scratches on stones, why don't we always 'see' if it is words? |
| 10487 | I am a fan of abstract objects, and confident of their existence [Boolos] |
| Full Idea: I am rather a fan of abstract objects, and confident of their existence. Smaller numbers, sets and functions don't offend my sense of reality. | |
| From: George Boolos (Must We Believe in Set Theory? [1997], p.128) | |
| A reaction: The great Boolos is rather hard to disagree with, but I disagree. Logicians love abstract objects, indeed they would almost be out of a job without them. It seems to me they smuggle them into our ontology by redefining either 'object' or 'exists'. |
| 10489 | We deal with abstract objects all the time: software, poems, mistakes, triangles.. [Boolos] |
| Full Idea: We twentieth century city dwellers deal with abstract objects all the time, such as bank balances, radio programs, software, newspaper articles, poems, mistakes, triangles. | |
| From: George Boolos (Must We Believe in Set Theory? [1997], p.129) | |
| A reaction: I find this claim to be totally question-begging, and typical of a logician. The word 'object' gets horribly stretched in these discussions. We can create concepts which have all the logical properties of objects. Maybe they just 'subsist'? |
| 16409 | Unlike Lewis, I defend an actualist version of counterpart theory [Stalnaker] |
| Full Idea: I defend a version of counterpart theory that is quite different from Lewis's version, as it is tied to actualism (all that exists is part of the actual world) rather than possibilism (possible things may exist without actually existing). | |
| From: Robert C. Stalnaker (Counterparts and Identity [1987], 1) | |
| A reaction: This could be the theory I am after. I am sympathetic to both actualism and to counterpart theory. Off to the woodshed…. |
| 16411 | If possible worlds really differ, I can't be in more than one at a time [Stalnaker] |
| Full Idea: Nothing can be in two places at once. If other possible worlds are really other universes, then clearly, you and I cannot be in them if we are here in this one. | |
| From: Robert C. Stalnaker (Counterparts and Identity [1987], 2) | |
| A reaction: This can be sensibly expressed without possible worlds. I can't embody my other possibilities while I am embodying this one (I'm too busy). Insofar as possible worlds are a good framework, they are just a precise map of common sense. |
| 16412 | If counterparts exist strictly in one world only, this seems to be extreme invariant essentialism [Stalnaker] |
| Full Idea: Counterparts involve the thesis that domains of different possible worlds are disjoint: possible individuals exist in at most one possible world. This seems to suggest extreme essentialism, where nothing could differ from how it is. | |
| From: Robert C. Stalnaker (Counterparts and Identity [1987], 2) | |
| A reaction: He quotes Salmon (1981:236) as saying counterpart theory is particularly inflexible essentialism. This is a long way from my use of 'essentialism'. The problem is just the extent to which my counterpart is 'the same' as me. |
| 16410 | Extensional semantics has individuals and sets; modal semantics has intensions, functions of world to extension [Stalnaker] |
| Full Idea: Semantic values in extensional semantics are extensions, like individuals for terms, and sets for predicates. In modal semantics we have intensions, functions from worlds to appropriate extensions. | |
| From: Robert C. Stalnaker (Counterparts and Identity [1987], 2) | |
| A reaction: It seems obvious that the meaning of a word like 'giraffe' must include possible giraffes, as well as actual and deceased giraffes. |