Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Commentary on 'De Anima'', 'Inexpressible Properties and Propositions' and 'What is Analytic Philosophy?'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these texts


9 ideas

1. Philosophy / F. Analytic Philosophy / 1. Nature of Analysis
Analysis must include definitions, search for simples, concept analysis, and Kant's analysis [Glock]
     Full Idea: Under 'analysis' a minimum would include the Socratic quest for definitions, Descartes' search for simple natures, the empiricists' psychological resolution of complex ideas, and Kant's 'transcendental' analysis of our cognitive capacities.
     From: Hans-Johann Glock (What is Analytic Philosophy? [2008], 6.1)
     A reaction: This has always struck me, and I find the narrow focus on modern logic a very distorted idea of the larger project. The aim, I think, is to understand by taking things apart, in the spirit of figuring out how a watch works.
3. Truth / H. Deflationary Truth / 3. Minimalist Truth
Instances of minimal truth miss out propositions inexpressible in current English [Hofweber]
     Full Idea: A standard objection to minimalist truth is the 'incompleteness objection'. Since there are propositions inexpressible in present English the concept of truth isn't captured by all the instances of the Tarski biconditional.
     From: Thomas Hofweber (Inexpressible Properties and Propositions [2006], 5.3)
     A reaction: Sounds like a good objection.
5. Theory of Logic / G. Quantification / 4. Substitutional Quantification
Quantification can't all be substitutional; some reference is obviously to objects [Hofweber]
     Full Idea: The view that all quantification is substitutional is not very plausible in general. Some uses of quantifiers clearly seem to have the function to make a claim about a domain of objects out there, no matter how they relate to the terms in our language.
     From: Thomas Hofweber (Inexpressible Properties and Propositions [2006], 2.1)
     A reaction: Robust realists like myself are hardly going to say that quantification is just an internal language game.
8. Modes of Existence / B. Properties / 1. Nature of Properties
Since properties have properties, there can be a typed or a type-free theory of them [Hofweber]
     Full Idea: Since properties themselves can have properties there is a well-known division in the theory of properties between those who take a typed and those who take a type-free approach.
     From: Thomas Hofweber (Inexpressible Properties and Propositions [2006], 2.2)
     A reaction: A typed approach would imply restrictions on what it can be a property of. 'Green' is a property of surfaces, 'dark' is a property of colours. My first reaction is to opt for type-free.
11. Knowledge Aims / C. Knowing Reality / 3. Idealism / d. Absolute idealism
German and British idealism is not about individual ideas, but the intelligibility of reality [Glock]
     Full Idea: Neither German nor British Idealism reduced reality to episodes in the minds of individuals. Instsead, they insisted that reality is intelligible only because it is a manifestation of a divine spirit or rational principle.
     From: Hans-Johann Glock (What is Analytic Philosophy? [2008], 5.2)
     A reaction: They standardly reject Berkeley. Such Idealism seems either to be the design argument for God's existence, or neo-Stoicism (in its claim that nature is rational). Why not just say that nature seems to be intelligible, and stop there?
18. Thought / D. Concepts / 4. Structure of Concepts / h. Family resemblance
We might say that the family resemblance is just a consequence of meaning-as-use [Glock]
     Full Idea: Against Wittgenstein's family resemblance view one might evoke his own idea that the meaning of a word is its use, and that diversity of use entails diversity of meaning.
     From: Hans-Johann Glock (What is Analytic Philosophy? [2008], 8.2)
     A reaction: Wittgenstein might just accept the point. Diversity of concepts reflects diversity of usage. But how do you distinguish 'football is a game' from 'oy, what's your game?'. How does usage distinguish metaphorical from literal (if it does)?
The variety of uses of 'game' may be that it has several meanings, and isn't a single concept [Glock]
     Full Idea: The proper conclusion to draw from the fact that we explain 'game' in a variety of different ways is that it is not a univocal term, but has different, albeit related, meanings.
     From: Hans-Johann Glock (What is Analytic Philosophy? [2008], 8.2)
     A reaction: [He cites Rundle 1990] Potter says Wittgenstein insisted that 'game' is a single concept. 'Game' certainly slides off into metaphor, as in 'are you playing games with me?'. The multivocal view would still meet family resemblance on a narrower range.
19. Language / F. Communication / 6. Interpreting Language / a. Translation
Holism says language can't be translated; the expressibility hypothesis says everything can [Hofweber]
     Full Idea: Holism says that nothing that can be said in one language can be said in another one. The expressibility hypothesis says that everything that can be said in one language can be said in every other one.
     From: Thomas Hofweber (Inexpressible Properties and Propositions [2006], 6.4)
     A reaction: Obviously expressibility would only refer to reasonably comprehensive languages (with basic logical connectives, for example). Personally I vote for the expressibility hypothesis, which Hofweber seems to favour.
22. Metaethics / B. Value / 2. Values / e. Death
The soul conserves the body, as we see by its dissolution when the soul leaves [Toletus]
     Full Idea: Every accident of a living thing, as well as all its organs and temperaments and its dispositions are conserved by the soul. We see this from experience, since when that soul recedes, all these dissolve and become corrupted.
     From: Franciscus Toletus (Commentary on 'De Anima' [1572], II.1.1), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 24.5
     A reaction: A nice example of observing a phenemonon, but not being able to observe the dependence relation the right way round. Compare Descartes in Idea 16763.