48 ideas
3811 | Entailment and validity are relations, but inference is a human activity [Searle] |
Full Idea: We must distinguish between entailment and validity as logical relations on the one hand, and inferring as a voluntary human activity on the other. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.1.II) |
3822 | Theory involves accepting conclusions, and so is a special case of practical reason [Searle] |
Full Idea: Theoretical reason is typically a matter of accepting a conclusion or hypothesis on the basis of argument or evidence, and is thus a special case of practical reason. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.3.VII) |
3806 | Rationality is built into the intentionality of the mind, and its means of expression [Searle] |
Full Idea: Constraints of rationality are built into the structure of mind and language, specifically into the structure of intentionality and speech acts. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Int xiv) |
3812 | Rationality is the way we coordinate our intentionality [Searle] |
Full Idea: The constraints of rationality ought to be thought of adverbially; they are a matter of the way in which we coordinate our intentionality. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.1.II) |
3809 | If complex logic requires rules, then so does basic logic [Searle] |
Full Idea: If you think you need a rule to infer q from 'p and (if p then q)', then you would also need a rule to infer p from p. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.1.II) |
3810 | In real reasoning semantics gives validity, not syntax [Searle] |
Full Idea: In real-life reasoning it is the semantic content that guarantees the validity of the inference, not the syntactical rule. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.1.II) |
8698 | Modal structuralism says mathematics studies possible structures, which may or may not be actualised [Hellman, by Friend] |
Full Idea: The modal structuralist thinks of mathematical structures as possibilities. The application of mathematics is just the realisation that a possible structure is actualised. As structures are possibilities, realist ontological problems are avoided. | |
From: report of Geoffrey Hellman (Mathematics without Numbers [1989]) by Michèle Friend - Introducing the Philosophy of Mathematics 4.3 | |
A reaction: Friend criticises this and rejects it, but it is appealing. Mathematics should aim to be applicable to any possible world, and not just the actual one. However, does the actual world 'actualise a mathematical structure'? |
9557 | Statements of pure mathematics are elliptical for a sort of modal conditional [Hellman, by Chihara] |
Full Idea: Hellman represents statements of pure mathematics as elliptical for modal conditionals of a certain sort. | |
From: report of Geoffrey Hellman (Mathematics without Numbers [1989]) by Charles Chihara - A Structural Account of Mathematics 5.3 | |
A reaction: It's a pity there is such difficulty in understanding conditionals (see Graham Priest on the subject). I intuit a grain of truth in this, though I take maths to reflect the structure of the actual world (with possibilities being part of that world). |
10263 | Modal structuralism can only judge possibility by 'possible' models [Shapiro on Hellman] |
Full Idea: The usual way to show that a sentence is possible is to show that it has a model, but for Hellman presumably a sentence is possible if it might have a model (or if, possibly, it has a model). It is not clear what this move brings us. | |
From: comment on Geoffrey Hellman (Mathematics without Numbers [1989]) by Stewart Shapiro - Philosophy of Mathematics 7.3 | |
A reaction: I can't assess this, but presumably the possibility of the model must be demonstrated in some way. Aren't all models merely possible, because they are based on axioms, which seem to be no more than possibilities? |
3841 | Users of 'supervenience' blur its causal and constitutive meanings [Searle] |
Full Idea: I am no fan of the concept of supervenience. Its uncritical use is a sign of philosophical confusion, because the concept oscillates between causal supervenience and constitutive supervenience. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.9 n5) | |
A reaction: I don't see why you shouldn't assert the supervenience of one thing on another, while saying that you are not sure whether it is causal or constitutive. The confusion seems to me to be in understandings of the causal version. |
3816 | Our beliefs are about things, not propositions (which are the content of the belief) [Searle] |
Full Idea: The terminology of "propositional attitudes" is confused, because it suggests that a belief is an attitude towards a propositions, …but the proposition is the content, not the object, of my belief. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.2) |
3833 | A belief is a commitment to truth [Searle] |
Full Idea: A belief is a commitment to truth. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.4.III) |
3837 | We can't understand something as a lie if beliefs aren't commitment to truth [Searle] |
Full Idea: If I lie and say "It is raining", my utterance is intelligible to me as a lie precisely because I understand that the utterance commits me to the truth of a proposition I do not believe to be true. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.6.II) |
19527 | We don't acquire evidence and then derive some knowledge, because evidence IS knowledge [Williamson] |
Full Idea: When we acquire new evidence in perception, we do not first acquire unknown evidence and then somehow base knowledge on it later. Rather, acquiring new is evidence IS acquiring new knowledge. | |
From: Timothy Williamson (Knowledge First (and reply) [2014], p.4) | |
A reaction: This makes his point much better than Idea 19526 does. |
19528 | Knowledge is prior to believing, just as doing is prior to trying to do [Williamson] |
Full Idea: Knowing corresponds to doing, believing to trying. Just as trying is naturally understood in relation to doing, so believing is naturally understood in relation to knowing. | |
From: Timothy Williamson (Knowledge First (and reply) [2014], p.4) | |
A reaction: An interesting analogy. You might infer that there can be no concept of 'belief' without the concept of 'knowledge', but we could say that it is 'truth' which is indispensible, and leave out knowledge entirely. Belief is to truth as trying is to doing? |
19529 | Belief explains justification, and knowledge explains belief, so knowledge explains justification [Williamson] |
Full Idea: If justification is the fundamental epistemic norm of belief, and a belief ought to constitute knowledge, then justification should be understood in terms of knowledge too. | |
From: Timothy Williamson (Knowledge First (and reply) [2014], p.5) | |
A reaction: If we are looking for the primitive norm which motivates the whole epistemic game, then I am thinking that truth might well play that role better than knowledge. TW would have to reply that it is the 'grasped truth', rather than the 'theoretical truth'. |
19530 | A neutral state of experience, between error and knowledge, is not basic; the successful state is basic [Williamson] |
Full Idea: A neutral state covering both perceiving and misperceiving (or remembering and misrembering) is not somehow more basic than perceiving, for what unifies the case of each neutral state is their relation to the successful state. | |
From: Timothy Williamson (Knowledge First (and reply) [2014], p.5-6) | |
A reaction: An alternative is Disjunctivism, which denies the existence of a single neutral state, so that there is nothing to unite the two states, and they don't have a dependence relation. Why can't there be a prior family of appearances, some of them successful? |
19531 | Internalism about mind is an obsolete view, and knowledge-first epistemology develops externalism [Williamson] |
Full Idea: A postulated underlying layer of narrow mental states is a myth, whose plausibility derives from a comfortingly familiar but obsolescent philosophy of mind. Knowledge-first epistemology is a further step in the development of externalism. | |
From: Timothy Williamson (Knowledge First (and reply) [2014], p.6) | |
A reaction: Williamson is a real bruiser, isn't he? I don't take internalism about mind to be obsolescent at all, but now I feel so inferior for clinging to such an 'obsolescent' belief. ...But then I cling to Aristotle, who is (no doubt) an obsolete philosopher. |
19536 | Knowledge-first says your total evidence IS your knowledge [Williamson] |
Full Idea: Knowledge-first equate one's total evidence with one's total knowledge. | |
From: Timothy Williamson (Knowledge First (and reply) [2014], p.8) | |
A reaction: Couldn't lots of evidence which merely had a high probability be combined together to give a state we would call 'knowledge'? Many dubious witnesses confirm the truth, as long as they are independent, and agree. |
3828 | Thinking must involve a self, not just an "it" [Searle] |
Full Idea: We should not say "It thinks" in preference to "I think". If thinking is an active, voluntary process, there must be a self who thinks. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.3.IX) |
19526 | Surely I am acquainted with physical objects, not with appearances? [Williamson] |
Full Idea: When I ask myself what I am acquainted with, the physical objects in front of me are far more natural candidates than their appearances. | |
From: Timothy Williamson (Knowledge First (and reply) [2014], p.3) | |
A reaction: Not very impressive. The word 'acquainted' means the content of the experience, not the phenomena. Do I 'experience' the objects, or the appearances? The answer there is less obvious. If you apply it to colours, it is even less obvious. |
3831 | Reasons can either be facts in the world, or intentional states [Searle] |
Full Idea: Both reasons and the things they are reasons for can be either facts in the world or intentional states such as beliefs, desires, and intentions. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.4.I) | |
A reaction: One might point out that beliefs, desires and intentions are facts in the world too. Implicit dualism. One can ask, what turns a fact into a reason? |
3830 | In the past people had a reason not to smoke, but didn't realise it [Searle] |
Full Idea: For a long time people had a reason not to smoke cigarettes, without knowing that they had such a reason. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.4) | |
A reaction: What does 'had' a reason mean here? If I wish you dead, there is a reason why you should be dead, but you don't 'have' the reason, and never will have. There's probably a reason why I should never have been born. |
3832 | Causes (usually events) are not the same as reasons (which are never events) [Searle] |
Full Idea: Causes are typically events, reasons are never events. You can give a reason by stating a cause, but it does not follow that the reason and the cause are the same thing. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.4.I) | |
A reaction: This is against Davidson. I'm with Searle here; my having a reason to do something is not the cause of my doing it. I don't, unlike Searle, believe in free will, but doing something for a reason is not just the operation of the reason. |
3823 | Being held responsible for past actions makes no sense without personal identity [Searle] |
Full Idea: I am held responsible now for things that I did in the distant past. But that only makes sense if there is some entity that is both the agent of the action in the past and me now. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.3.VII) | |
A reaction: A possible response, of course, is that you are held responsible for your past deeds, but you shouldn't be. The idea that you are the same as when you committed the crime is a convenient fiction for people who desire revenge. Responsibility fades. |
3821 | Giving reasons for action requires reference to a self [Searle] |
Full Idea: The requirement that I state reasons that I acted on requires a reference to the self. …Only for a self can something be a reason for an action. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.3.VII) | |
A reaction: Why can't we just say that this reason, given this desire and this belief, led to this action, and never mention the self? Admittedly leaving out 'I' is an odd circumlocution, but I don't find this particular argument very convincing. |
3824 | A 'self' must be capable of conscious reasonings about action [Searle] |
Full Idea: In order to be a self the entity that acts as an agent must also be capable of conscious reasoning about its actions. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.3.VIII) | |
A reaction: I can't accept this all-or-nothing account. A chimpanzee is some sort of 'agent', and there are bad chimpanzees you wouldn't want in your colony. Why does Searle want to cut us off in some special compound where our actions are totally different? |
3834 | An intentional, acting, rational being must have a self [Searle] |
Full Idea: Selfhood in my sense comes for free once you have a conscious intentional being capable of engaging in free actions on the basis of reasons. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.5.II) | |
A reaction: The concept of an 'action' is probably the thing that most clearly needs a self, because it implies co-ordination and purpose, and there must be some item which benefits. Personally I think you can drop 'free actions' and still have a self. |
3825 | Action requires a self, even though perception doesn't [Searle] |
Full Idea: It is a formal requirement on rational action that there must be a self who acts, in a way that it is not a formal requirement on perception that there be an agent or a self who perceives. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.3.IX) | |
A reaction: I don't find this persuasive. I don't see how we can rule out a priori the possibility of a set of desires and reasons within an organism which generate an action, without any intervening 'self' to add something. Ockham's Razor. |
3829 | Selfs are conscious, enduring, reasonable, active, free, and responsible [Searle] |
Full Idea: A self is conscious, persists through time, operates with reasons, carries out free actions, and is responsible. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.3.X) | |
A reaction: Personally I would substitute 'makes decisions' for 'carries out free actions', but otherwise I agree, though he seems to miss a key aspect, which is that the self is in charge of the mind, and directs its focus and co-ordinates its inputs and outputs. |
3826 | A self must at least be capable of consciousness [Searle] |
Full Idea: The first condition on the self is that it should be capable of consciousness. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.3.IX) | |
A reaction: This strikes me as a stipulative definition. It raises the question of whether it is possible that a lizard (say) is not actually conscious, but has some sort of propriotreptic awareness, and a 'central controller' for its decision-making. |
3827 | The self is neither an experience nor a thing experienced [Searle] |
Full Idea: The self is not an experience, nor is it an object that is experienced. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.3.IX) | |
A reaction: A nice dichotomy, that draws attention to the unique position of the self. Thanks to Descartes for focusing our attention on it. Personally I would say that the self is an object, which cannot be experienced by itself, but can be inferred by others. |
3820 | The bundle must also have agency in order to act, and a self to act rationally [Searle] |
Full Idea: Agency must be added to the bundle to account for how embodied bundles engage in free actions, and selfhood must be added to account for how agents can act rationally. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.3.VII) | |
A reaction: I don't buy much of this, but I am inclined to say that a will must be added to the bundle to explain why it acts consistently and coherently. It is certainly ridiculous to rest with the picture of a person as a completely unstructured bundle. |
3817 | Free will is most obvious when we choose between several reasons for an action [Searle] |
Full Idea: The most dramatic manifestation of the free will gap is that when one has several reasons for performing an action, one may act on only one of them; one may select which reason one acts on. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.3.II) |
3808 | Rational decision making presupposes free will [Searle] |
Full Idea: In order to engage in rational decision making we have to presuppose free will. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.1.II) |
3818 | We freely decide whether to make a reason for action effective [Searle] |
Full Idea: Where free rational action is concerned, all effective reasons are made effective by the agent. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.3.II) |
19534 | How does inferentialism distinguish the patterns of inference that are essential to meaning? [Williamson] |
Full Idea: Inferentialism faces the grave problem of separating patterns of inference that are to count as essential to the meaning of an expression from those that will count as accidental (a form of the analytic/synthetic distinction). | |
From: Timothy Williamson (Knowledge First (and reply) [2014], p.6) | |
A reaction: This sounds like a rather persuasive objection to inferentialism, though I don't personally take that as a huge objection to all internalist semantics. |
19535 | Internalist inferentialism has trouble explaining how meaning and reference relate [Williamson] |
Full Idea: The internalist version of inferentialist semantics has particular difficulty in establishing an adequate relation between meaning and reference. | |
From: Timothy Williamson (Knowledge First (and reply) [2014], p.6) | |
A reaction: I would have thought that this was a big problem for referentialist semantics too, though evidently Williamson doesn't think so. If he is saying that the meaning is in the external world, dream on. |
19533 | Inferentialist semantics relies on internal inference relations, not on external references [Williamson] |
Full Idea: On internalist inferential (or conceptual role) semantics, the inferential relations of an expression do not depend on what, if anything, it refers to, ...rather, the meaning is something like its place in a web of inferential relations. | |
From: Timothy Williamson (Knowledge First (and reply) [2014], p.6) | |
A reaction: Williamson says the competition is between externalist truth-conditional referential semantics (which he favours), and this internalist inferential semantics. He is, like, an expert, of course, but I doubt whether that is the only internalist option. |
19532 | Truth-conditional referential semantics is externalist, referring to worldly items [Williamson] |
Full Idea: Truth-conditional referential semantics is an externalist programme. In a context of utterance the atomic expressions of a language refer to worldly items, from which the truth-conditions of sentences are compositionally determined. | |
From: Timothy Williamson (Knowledge First (and reply) [2014], p.6) | |
A reaction: I just don't see how a physical object can be part of the contents of a sentence. 'Dragons fly' is atomic, and meaningful, but its reference fails. 'The cat is asleep' is just words - it doesn't contain a live animal. |
3814 | Preferences can result from deliberation, not just precede it [Searle] |
Full Idea: A well-ordered set of preferences is typically the result of successful deliberation, and is not its precondition. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.1.II) |
3840 | We don't accept practical reasoning if the conclusion is unpalatable [Searle] |
Full Idea: If I desire to get rid of my flu symptoms, and believe the only way to do it is death, I am committed to desiring my death. …there is no plausible logic of practical reason. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.8.II) |
3815 | The essence of humanity is desire-independent reasons for action [Searle] |
Full Idea: The single greatest difference between humans and other animals as far as rationality is concerned is our ability to create, recognise and act on desire-independent reasons for action. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.1.II) |
3839 | Only an internal reason can actually motivate the agent to act [Searle] |
Full Idea: Only an internal reason can actually motivate the agent to act. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.6 App) |
3835 | If it is true, you ought to believe it [Searle] |
Full Idea: To say that something is true is already to say that you ought to believe it. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.5.II) | |
A reaction: I'm sure what Einstein said is true, but I don't understand it. The truth is the thought of how things actually are, but why should I not prefer my private fantasies? I see the point, though. |
3836 | If this is a man, you ought to accept similar things as men [Searle] |
Full Idea: From the fact that an object is truly described as "a man", it follows that you ought to accept relevantly similar objects as men. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.5.IV) | |
A reaction: 'Similar' rather begs the question. Common speech distinguishes sharply between a man and a 'real man'. You only accept them as men if you see them as men, not as similar to something else. Interesting. |
3838 | Promises hold because I give myself a reason, not because it is an institution [Searle] |
Full Idea: The obligation to keep a promise does not derive from the institution of promising, ..but from the fact that in promising I freely and voluntarily create a reason for myself. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.6.IV) |
3813 | 'Ought' implies that there is a reason to do something [Searle] |
Full Idea: To say that someone 'ought' to do something is to imply that there is a reason for him to do it. | |
From: John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.1.II) |