5 ideas
3750 | "It is true that x" means no more than x [Ramsey] |
Full Idea: It is evident that "It is true that Caesar was murdered" means no more than that Caesar was murdered. | |
From: Frank P. Ramsey (Facts and Propositions [1927]) | |
A reaction: At the very least, saying it is true adds emphasis. One sentence is about Caesar, the other about a proposal concerning Caesar, so they can't quite be the same. Note Frege's priority in making this suggestion. |
10594 | Henkin semantics is more plausible for plural logic than for second-order logic [Maddy] |
Full Idea: Henkin-style semantics seem to me more plausible for plural logic than for second-order logic. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Second Philosophy [2007], III.8 n1) | |
A reaction: Henkin-style semantics are presented by Shapiro as the standard semantics for second-order logic. |
21862 | Consciousness is based on 'I can', not on 'I think' [Merleau-Ponty] |
Full Idea: Consciousness is in the first place not a matter of 'I think' but of 'I can'. | |
From: Maurice Merleau-Ponty (Phenomenology of Perception [1945], p.159), quoted by Beth Lord - Spinoza's Ethics 2 'Sensation' | |
A reaction: The point here (quoted during a discussion of Spinoza) is that you can't leave out the role of the body, which seems correct. |
20750 | The mind does not unite perceptions, because they flow into one another [Merleau-Ponty] |
Full Idea: I do not have one perception, then another, and between them a link brought about by the mind. Rather, each perspective merges into the other [against a unified background]. | |
From: Maurice Merleau-Ponty (Phenomenology of Perception [1945], p.329-30), quoted by Kevin Aho - Existentialism: an introduction 3 'Perceptual' | |
A reaction: I take this to be another piece of evidence pointing to realism as the best explanation of experience. A problem for Descartes is what unites the sequence of thoughts. |
18818 | Sentence meaning is given by the actions to which it would lead [Ramsey] |
Full Idea: The meaning of a sentence is to be defined by reference to the actions to which asserting it would lead. | |
From: Frank P. Ramsey (Facts and Propositions [1927], p.51), quoted by Ian Rumfitt - The Boundary Stones of Thought | |
A reaction: I find this idea quite bizarre. Most sentences have no connection to any action or behavior at all. Do we have to ingeniously contrive some possible action? That is the worst sort of behaviourism. See context - Ramsey wasn't stupid! |