|
16908
|
We can dispense with self-evidence, if language itself prevents logical mistakes [Jeshion on Wittgenstein]
|
|
Full Idea:
The 'self-evidence' of which Russell talks so much can only be dispensed with in logic if language itself prevents any logical mistake.
|
|
From:
comment on Ludwig Wittgenstein (Notebooks 1914-1916 [1915], 4) by Robin Jeshion - Frege's Notion of Self-Evidence 4
|
|
A reaction:
Jeshion presents this as a key idea, turning against Frege, and is the real source of the 'linguistic turn' in philosophy. If self-evidence is abandoned, then language itself is the guide to truth, so study language. I think I prefer Frege. See Quine?
|
|
6563
|
'And' and 'not' are non-referring terms, which do not represent anything [Wittgenstein, by Fogelin]
|
|
Full Idea:
Wittgenstein's 'fundamental idea' is that the 'and' and 'not' which guarantee the truth of "not p and not-p" are meaningful, but do not get their meaning by representing or standing for or referring to some kind of entity; they are non-referring terms.
|
|
From:
report of Ludwig Wittgenstein (Notebooks 1914-1916 [1915], §37) by Robert Fogelin - Walking the Tightrope of Reason Ch.1
|
|
A reaction:
Wittgenstein then defines the terms using truth tables, to show what they do, rather than what they stand for. This seems to me to be a candidate for the single most important idea in the history of the philosophy of logic.
|
|
15094
|
I now deny that properties are cluster of powers, and take causal properties as basic [Shoemaker]
|
|
Full Idea:
I now reject the formulation of the causal theory which says that a property is a cluster of conditional powers. That has a reductionist flavour, which is a cheat. We need properties to explain conditional powers, so properties won't reduce.
|
|
From:
Sydney Shoemaker (Causal and Metaphysical Necessity [1998], III)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed wording] I agree with Mumford and Anjum in preferring his earlier formulation. I think properties are broad messy things, whereas powers can be defined more precisely, and seem to have more stability in nature.
|
|
15099
|
If something is possible, but not nomologically possible, we need metaphysical possibility [Shoemaker]
|
|
Full Idea:
If it is possible that there could be possible states of affairs that are not nomologically possible, don't we therefore need a notion of metaphysical possibility that outruns nomological possibility?
|
|
From:
Sydney Shoemaker (Causal and Metaphysical Necessity [1998], VI)
|
|
A reaction:
Shoemaker rejects this possibility (p.425). I sympathise. So there is 'natural' possibility (my preferred term), which is anything which stuff, if it exists, could do, and 'logical' possibility, which is anything that doesn't lead to contradiction.
|
|
15101
|
Once you give up necessity as a priori, causal necessity becomes the main type of necessity [Shoemaker]
|
|
Full Idea:
Once the obstacle of the deeply rooted conviction that necessary truths should be knowable a priori is removed, ...causal necessity is (pretheoretically) the very paradigm of necessity, in ordinary usage and in dictionaries.
|
|
From:
Sydney Shoemaker (Causal and Metaphysical Necessity [1998], VII)
|
|
A reaction:
The a priori route seems to lead to logical necessity, just by doing a priori logic, and also to metaphysical necessity, by some sort of intuitive vision. This is a powerful idea of Shoemaker's (implied, of course, in Kripke).
|
|
15100
|
Imagination reveals conceptual possibility, where descriptions avoid contradiction or incoherence [Shoemaker]
|
|
Full Idea:
Imaginability can give us access to conceptual possibility, when we come to believe situations to be conceptually possible by reflecting on their descriptions and seeing no contradiction or incoherence.
|
|
From:
Sydney Shoemaker (Causal and Metaphysical Necessity [1998], VI)
|
|
A reaction:
If take the absence of contradiction to indicate 'logical' possibility, but the absence of incoherence is more interesting, even if it is a bit vague. He is talking of 'situations', which I take to be features of reality. A priori synthetic?
|
|
22323
|
The philosophical I is the metaphysical subject, the limit - not a part of the world [Wittgenstein]
|
|
Full Idea:
The philosophical I is not the man, not the human body, or the human soul of wh9ch psychology treats, but the metaphysical subject, the limit - not a part of the world.
|
|
From:
Ludwig Wittgenstein (Notebooks 1914-1916 [1915], 1916. 2 Sep), quoted by Michael Potter - The Rise of Analytic Philosophy 1879-1930 58 Intro
|
|
A reaction:
This is to treat the self as a phenomenon of thought, rather than of a human being. So if a machine could think, would it hence necessarily have a metaphysical self?
|
|
4678
|
Absolute prohibitions are the essence of ethics, and suicide is the most obvious example [Wittgenstein]
|
|
Full Idea:
If suicide is allowed, then everything is allowed. If anything is not allowed, then suicide is not allowed. This throws a light on the nature of ethics, for suicide is, so to speak, the elementary sin.
|
|
From:
Ludwig Wittgenstein (Notebooks 1914-1916 [1915], end), quoted by Jonathan Glover - Causing Death and Saving Lives §13
|
|
A reaction:
This reveals the religious streak in Wittgenstein. I am reluctant to judge suicide, but this seems wrong. Should a 'jumper' worry if they land on someone else and kill them? Of course they should.
|
|
15093
|
We might say laws are necessary by combining causal properties with Armstrong-Dretske-Tooley laws [Shoemaker]
|
|
Full Idea:
One way to get the conclusion that laws are necessary is to combine my view of properties with the view of Armstrong, Dretske and Tooley, that laws are, or assert, relations between properties.
|
|
From:
Sydney Shoemaker (Causal and Metaphysical Necessity [1998], I)
|
|
A reaction:
This is interesting, because Armstrong in particular wants the necessity to arise from relations between properties as universals, but if we define properties causally, and make them necessary, we might get the same result without universals.
|