|
18767
|
Free logics has terms that do not designate real things, and even empty domains [Anderson,CA]
|
|
Full Idea:
Free logics say 1) singular terms are allowed that do not designate anything that exists; sometimes 2) is added: the domain of discourse is allowed to be empty. Logics with both conditions are called 'universally free logics'.
|
|
From:
C. Anthony Anderson (Identity and Existence in Logic [2014], 2.3)
|
|
A reaction:
I really like the sound of this, and aim to investigate it. Karel Lambert's writings are the starting point. Maybe the domain of logic is our concepts, rather than things in the world, in which case free logic sounds fine.
|
|
18771
|
Stop calling ∃ the 'existential' quantifier, read it as 'there is...', and range over all entities [Anderson,CA]
|
|
Full Idea:
Ontological quantifiers might just as well range over all the entities needed for the semantics. ...The minimal way would be to just stop calling '∃' an 'existential quantifier', and always read it as 'there is...' rather than 'there exists...'.
|
|
From:
C. Anthony Anderson (Identity and Existence in Logic [2014], 2.6)
|
|
A reaction:
There is no right answer here, but it seems to be the strategy adopted by most logicians, and the majority of modern metaphysicians. They just allow abstracta, and even fictions, to 'exist', while not being fussy what it means. Big mistake!
|
|
18768
|
We cannot pick out a thing and deny its existence, but we can say a concept doesn't correspond [Anderson,CA]
|
|
Full Idea:
Parmenides was correct - one cannot speak of that which is not, even to say that it is not. But one can speak of concepts and say of them that they do not correspond to anything real.
|
|
From:
C. Anthony Anderson (Identity and Existence in Logic [2014], 2.5)
|
|
A reaction:
[This summarises Alonso Church, who was developing Frege] This sounds like the right thing to say about non-existence, but then the same principle must apply to assertions of existence, which will also be about concepts and not things.
|
|
18765
|
Individuation was a problem for medievals, then Leibniz, then Frege, then Wittgenstein (somewhat) [Anderson,CA]
|
|
Full Idea:
The medieval philosophers and then Leibniz were keen on finding 'principles of individuation', and the idea appears again in Frege, to be taken up in some respects by Wittgenstein.
|
|
From:
C. Anthony Anderson (Identity and Existence in Logic [2014], 1.6)
|
|
A reaction:
I take a rather empirical approach to this supposed problem, and suggest we break 'individuation' down into its component parts, and then just drop the word. Discussions of principles of individuations strike me as muddled. Wiggins and Lowe today.
|
|
18764
|
The notion of 'property' is unclear for a logical version of the Identity of Indiscernibles [Anderson,CA]
|
|
Full Idea:
In the Identity of Indiscernibles, one speaks about properties, and the notion of a property is by no means clearly fixed and formalized in modern symbolic logic.
|
|
From:
C. Anthony Anderson (Identity and Existence in Logic [2014], 1.5)
|
|
A reaction:
The unclarity of 'property' is a bee in my philosophical bonnet, in speech, and in metaphysics, as well as in logic. It may well be the central problem in our attempts to understand the world in general terms. He cites intensional logic as promising.
|
|
8954
|
Geometrical circles cannot identify a circular paint patch, presumably because they lack something [Szabó]
|
|
Full Idea:
The vocabulary of geometry is sufficient to identify the circle, but could not be used to identify any circular paint patch. The reason must be that the circle lacks certain properties that can distinguish paint patches from one another.
|
|
From:
Zoltán Gendler Szabó (Nominalism [2003], 2.2)
|
|
A reaction:
I take this to be support for the traditional view, that abstractions are created by omitting some of the properties of physical objects. I take them to be fictional creations, reified by language, and not actual hidden entities that have been observed.
|
|
8955
|
Abstractions are imperceptible, non-causal, and non-spatiotemporal (the third explaining the others) [Szabó]
|
|
Full Idea:
In current discussions, abstract entities are usually distinguished as 1) in principle imperceptible, 2) incapable of causal interaction, 3) not located in space-time. The first is often explained by the second, which is in turn explained by the third.
|
|
From:
Zoltán Gendler Szabó (Nominalism [2003], 2.2)
|
|
A reaction:
Szabó concludes by offering 3 as the sole criterion of abstraction. As Lewis points out, the Way of Negation for defining abstracta doesn't tell us very much. Courage may be non-spatiotemporal, but what about Alexander the Great's courage?
|
|
5655
|
Happiness is not satisfaction of desires, but fulfilment of values [Bradley, by Scruton]
|
|
Full Idea:
For Bradley, the happiness of the individual is not to be understood in terms of his desires and needs, but rather in terms of his values - which is to say, in terms of those of his desires which he incorporates into his self.
|
|
From:
report of F.H. Bradley (Ethical Studies [1876]) by Roger Scruton - Short History of Modern Philosophy Ch.16
|
|
A reaction:
Good. Bentham will reduce the values to a further set of desires, so that a value is a complex (second-level?) desire. I prefer to think of values as judgements, but I like Scruton's phrase of 'incorporating into his self'. Kant take note (Idea 1452).
|