Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Commentary on 'De Anima'', 'Interview with Baggini and Stangroom' and 'The Source of Necessity'

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

---

12 ideas

1. Philosophy / H. Continental Philosophy / 1. Continental Philosophy

6859	Analytic philosophy has much higher standards of thinking than continental philosophy [Williamson]
	Full Idea: Certain advances in philosophical standards have been made within analytic philosophy, and there would be a serious loss of integrity involved in abandoning them in the way required to participate in current continental philosophy.
	From: Timothy Williamson (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.151)
	A reaction: The reply might be to concede the point, but say that the precision and rigour achieved are precisely what debar analytical philosophy from thinking about the really interesting problems. One might as well switch to maths and have done with it.

4. Formal Logic / E. Nonclassical Logics / 4. Fuzzy Logic

6862	Fuzzy logic uses a continuum of truth, but it implies contradictions [Williamson]
	Full Idea: Fuzzy logic is based on a continuum of degrees of truth, but it is committed to the idea that it is half-true that one identical twin is tall and the other twin is not, even though they are the same height.
	From: Timothy Williamson (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.154)
	A reaction: Maybe to be shocked by a contradiction is missing the point of fuzzy logic? Half full is the same as half empty. The logic does not say the twins are different, because it is half-true that they are both tall, and half-true that they both aren't.

5. Theory of Logic / A. Overview of Logic / 3. Value of Logic

6858	Formal logic struck me as exactly the language I wanted to think in [Williamson]
	Full Idea: As soon as I started learning formal logic, that struck me as exactly the language that I wanted to think in.
	From: Timothy Williamson (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001])
	A reaction: It takes all sorts… It is interesting that formal logic might be seen as having the capacity to live up to such an aspiration. I don't think the dream of an ideal formal language is dead, though it will never encompass all of reality. Poetic truth.

7. Existence / D. Theories of Reality / 10. Vagueness / c. Vagueness as ignorance

6863	Close to conceptual boundaries judgement is too unreliable to give knowledge [Williamson]
	Full Idea: If one is very close to a conceptual boundary, then one's judgement will be too unreliable to constitute knowledge, and therefore one will be ignorant.
	From: Timothy Williamson (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.156)
	A reaction: This is the epistemological rather than ontological interpretation of vagueness. It sounds very persuasive, but I am reluctant to accept that reality is full of very precise boundaries which we cannot quite discriminate.

9. Objects / B. Unity of Objects / 3. Unity Problems / e. Vague objects

6861	What sort of logic is needed for vague concepts, and what sort of concept of truth? [Williamson]
	Full Idea: The problem of vagueness is the problem of what logic is correct for vague concepts, and correspondingly what notions of truth and falsity are applicable to vague statements (does one need a continuum of degrees of truth, for example?).
	From: Timothy Williamson (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.153)
	A reaction: This certainly makes vagueness sound like one of the most interesting problems in all of philosophy, though also one of the most difficult. Williamson's solution is that we may be vague, but the world isn't.

10. Modality / C. Sources of Modality / 1. Sources of Necessity

12432	Explanation of necessity must rest on something necessary or something contingent [Hale]
	Full Idea: The dilemma is that to give the ultimate source of any necessity, we must either appeal to something which could not have been otherwise (i.e. is itself necessary), or advert to something which could have been otherwise (i.e. is itself merely contingent).
	From: Bob Hale (The Source of Necessity [2002], p.301)
	A reaction: [Hale is summarising Blackburn's view, and going on to disagree with it] Hale looks for a third way, but Blackburn seems to face us with quite a plausible dilemma.

12434	Why is this necessary, and what is necessity in general; why is this necessary truth true, and why necessary? [Hale]
	Full Idea: We must distinguish between explaining particular necessities and explaining necessity in general; and we ought to distinguish between explaining, in regard to any necessary truth, why it is true, and explaining why it is necessary.
	From: Bob Hale (The Source of Necessity [2002], p.308)
	A reaction: Useful. The pluralist view I associate with Fine says we can explain types of necessity, but not necessity in general. If we seek truthmakers, there is a special case of what adds the necessity to the truth.

12435	The explanation of a necessity can be by a truth (which may only happen to be a necessary truth) [Hale]
	Full Idea: My claim is that there are non-transitive explanations of necessities, where what explains is indeed necessary, but what explains the necessity of the explanandum is not the explanation's necessity, but its truth simpliciter.
	From: Bob Hale (The Source of Necessity [2002], p.311)
	A reaction: The big idea is to avoid a regress of necessities. The actual truths he proposes are essentialist. An interesting proposal. It might depend on how one views essences (as giving identity, or causal power)

10. Modality / C. Sources of Modality / 3. Necessity by Convention

12433	If necessity rests on linguistic conventions, those are contingent, so there is no necessity [Hale]
	Full Idea: If the alleged necessity, e,g, 2+2=4, really does depend upon a convention governing the use of the words in which we state it, and the existence of that convention is merely a contingent matter, then it can't after all be necessary.
	From: Bob Hale (The Source of Necessity [2002], p.302)
	A reaction: [Hale is citing Blackburn for this claim] Hale suggests replies, by keeping truth and meaning separate, and involving laws of logic. Blackburn clearly has a good point.

10. Modality / C. Sources of Modality / 4. Necessity from Concepts

12436	Concept-identities explain how we know necessities, not why they are necessary [Hale]
	Full Idea: It seems to me that identity-relations among concepts have more to do with explaining how we know that vixens are female foxes etc., than with explaining why it is necessary, and, more generally, with explaining why some necessities are knowable a priori.
	From: Bob Hale (The Source of Necessity [2002], P.313)
	A reaction: Hale rejects the conceptual and conventional accounts of necessity, in favour of the essentialist view. This strikes me as a good suggestion of Hale's, since I agree with him about the essentialism.

12. Knowledge Sources / B. Perception / 1. Perception

6860	How can one discriminate yellow from red, but not the colours in between? [Williamson]
	Full Idea: If one takes a spectrum of colours from yellow to red, it might be that given a series of colour samples along that spectrum, each sample is indiscriminable by the naked eye from the next one, though samples at either end are blatantly different.
	From: Timothy Williamson (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.151)
	A reaction: This seems like a nice variant of the Sorites paradox (Idea 6008). One could demonstrate it with just three samples, where A and C seemed different from each other, but other comparisons didn't.

22. Metaethics / B. Value / 2. Values / e. Death

16764	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.