|
5182
|
Claims about 'the Absolute' are not even verifiable in principle [Ayer on Bradley]
|
|
Full Idea:
Such a metaphysical pseudo-proposition as 'the Absolute enters into, but is itself incapable of, evolution and progress' (F.H.Bradley) is not even in principle verifiable.
|
|
From:
comment on F.H. Bradley (Appearance and Reality [1893]) by A.J. Ayer - Language,Truth and Logic Ch.1
|
|
A reaction:
One may jeer at the Verification Principle for either failing to be precise, or for failing to pass its own test, but Ayer still has a point here. When we drift off into sustained abstractions, we must keeping asking if we are still saying anything real.
|
|
4901
|
Truth has to be correspondence to facts, and a match between relations of ideas and relations in the world [Perry]
|
|
Full Idea:
I think knowledge and truth are a matter of correspondence to facts, despite all the energy spent showing the naïveté of this view. The connections of our ideas in our heads correspond to relations in the outside world.
|
|
From:
John Perry (Knowledge, Possibility and Consciousness [2001], §8.1)
|
|
A reaction:
Yes. Modern books offer the difficulties of defining 'correspondence', and finding an independent account of 'facts', as conclusive objections, but I say a brain is a truth machine, and it had better be useful. Indefinability doesn't nullify concepts.
|
|
6422
|
Internal relations are said to be intrinsic properties of two terms, and of the whole they compose [Bradley, by Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
The doctrine of internal relations held that every relation between two terms expresses, primarily, intrinsic properties of the two terms and, in ultimate analysis, a property of the whole which the two compose.
|
|
From:
report of F.H. Bradley (Appearance and Reality [1893]) by Bertrand Russell - My Philosophical Development Ch.5
|
|
A reaction:
Russell's first big campaign was to reject this view, and his ontology from then on included relations among the catalogue of universals. The coherence theory of truth also gets thrown out at the same time. Russell seems right.
|
|
7966
|
Relations must be linked to their qualities, but that implies an infinite regress of relations [Bradley]
|
|
Full Idea:
If a relation between qualities is to be something, then clearly we will now require a new connecting relation. The links are united by a link, and this link has two ends, which require a fresh link to connect them to the old.
|
|
From:
F.H. Bradley (Appearance and Reality [1893], p.28), quoted by Cynthia Macdonald - Varieties of Things Ch.6
|
|
A reaction:
That is: external relations generates an infinite regress, so relations must be internal. Russell launched his own philosophy with an attack on Bradley's idea. Personally I take how two things 'relate' to one another as one of the deepest of mysteries.
|
|
4885
|
Identity is a very weak relation, which doesn't require interdefinability, or shared properties [Perry]
|
|
Full Idea:
The truth of "a=b" doesn't require much of 'a' and 'b' other than that there is a single thing to which they both refer. They needn't be interdefinable, or have supervenient properties. In this sense, identity is a very weak relation.
|
|
From:
John Perry (Knowledge, Possibility and Consciousness [2001], §1.2)
|
|
A reaction:
Interesting. This is seeing the epistemological aspects of identity. Ontologically, identity must invoke Leibniz's Law, and is the ultimately powerful 'relation'. A given student, and the cause of a crop circle, may APPEAR to be quite different.
|
|
4899
|
Possible worlds thinking has clarified the logic of modality, but is problematic in epistemology [Perry]
|
|
Full Idea:
Using possible worlds to model truth-conditions of statements has led to considerable clarity about the logic of modality. Attempts to use the system for epistemic purposes, however, have been plagued by problems.
|
|
From:
John Perry (Knowledge, Possibility and Consciousness [2001], §8.1)
|
|
A reaction:
Presumably what lurks behind this is a distinction between what is logically or naturally possible, and what appears to be possible from the perspective of a conscious mind. Is there a possible world in which I can fly?
|
|
4898
|
Possible worlds are indices for a language, or concrete realities, or abstract possibilities [Perry]
|
|
Full Idea:
Possible worlds can be thought of as indices for models of the language in question, or as concrete realities (David Lewis), or as abstract ways the world might be (Robert Stalnaker), or in various other ways.
|
|
From:
John Perry (Knowledge, Possibility and Consciousness [2001], §8.1)
|
|
A reaction:
I strongly favour the Stalnaker route here. Reducing great metaphysics to mere language I find abhorrent, and I suspect that Lewis was trapped by his commitment to strong empiricism. We must embrace abstractions into our ontology.
|
|
6404
|
British Idealists said reality is a single Mind which experiences itself [Bradley, by Grayling]
|
|
Full Idea:
The idealism of Green and Bradley, both of whom were much influenced by the German Idealists, espoused the thesis that the universe ultimately consists of a single Mind which, so to speak, experiences itself.
|
|
From:
report of F.H. Bradley (Appearance and Reality [1893]) by A.C. Grayling - Russell Ch.2
|
|
A reaction:
This looks now like the last (extreme) throw by the religious view of the world, which collapsed in the face of the empirical realism of Russell and Moore. It is all Kant's fault, for cutting us off from his 'noumenon'.
|
|
4891
|
If epiphenomenalism just says mental events are effects but not causes, it is consistent with physicalism [Perry]
|
|
Full Idea:
Epiphenomenalism is usually considered to be a form of dualism, but if we define it as the doctrine that conscious events are effects but not causes, it appears to be consistent with physicalism.
|
|
From:
John Perry (Knowledge, Possibility and Consciousness [2001], §4.2)
|
|
A reaction:
Interesting. The theory was invented to put mind outside physics, and make the closure of physics possible. However, being capable of causing things seems to be a necessary condition for physical objects. An effect in one domain is a cause in another.
|
|
4889
|
Although we may classify ideas by content, we individuate them differently, as their content can change [Perry]
|
|
Full Idea:
Although we classify ideas by content for many purposes, we do not individuate them by content. The content of an idea can change.
|
|
From:
John Perry (Knowledge, Possibility and Consciousness [2001], §3.2)
|
|
A reaction:
As the compiler of this database, I find this very appealing. The mind works exactly like a database. I have a 'file' (Perry's word) marked "London", the content of which undergoes continual change. I am a database management system.
|
|
4896
|
The intension of an expression is a function from possible worlds to an appropriate extension [Perry]
|
|
Full Idea:
In possible-worlds semantics, expressions have intensions, which are functions from possible worlds to appropriate extensions (names to individuals, n-place predicates to n-tuples, and sentences to truth values, built from parts).
|
|
From:
John Perry (Knowledge, Possibility and Consciousness [2001], §8.1)
|
|
A reaction:
Interesting. Perry distinguishes 'referential' (or 'subject matter') content, which is prior to the link to extensions - a link which creates 'reflexive' content. He is keen that they should not become confused. True knowledge is 'situated'.
|
|
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).
|
|
6406
|
Reality is one, because plurality implies relations, and they assert a superior unity [Bradley]
|
|
Full Idea:
Reality is one. It must be simple because plurality, taken as real, contradicts itself. Plurality implies relations, and, through its relations it unwillingly asserts always a superior unity.
|
|
From:
F.H. Bradley (Appearance and Reality [1893], p.519), quoted by A.C. Grayling - Russell Ch.2
|
|
A reaction:
This argument depends on a belief in 'internal' relations, which Russell famously attacked. If an internal feature of every separate item was its relation to other things, then I suppose Bradley would be right. But it isn't, and he isn't.
|