|
13985
|
A true proposition seems true of one fact, but a false proposition seems true of nothing at all. [Ryle]
|
|
Full Idea:
Whereas there might be just one fact that a true proposition was like, we would have to say that a false proposition was unlike any fact. We could not speak of the fact that it was false of, so we could not speak of its being false of anything at all.
|
|
From:
Gilbert Ryle (Are there propositions? [1930], 'Objections')
|
|
A reaction:
Ryle brings out very nicely the point Russell emphasised so much, that the most illuminating studies in philosophy are of how falsehood works, rather than of how truths work. If I say 'the Queen is really a man' it is obvious what that is false of.
|
|
13979
|
Logic studies consequence, compatibility, contradiction, corroboration, necessitation, grounding.... [Ryle]
|
|
Full Idea:
Logic studies the way in which one thing follows from another, in which one thing is compatible with another, contradicts, corroborates or necessitates another, is a special case of another or the nerve of another. And so on.
|
|
From:
Gilbert Ryle (Are there propositions? [1930], IV)
|
|
A reaction:
I presume that 'and so on' would include how one thing proves another. This is quite a nice list, which makes me think a little more widely about the nature of logic (rather than just about inference). Incompatibility isn't a process.
|
|
17312
|
It is more explanatory if you show how a number is constructed from basic entities and relations [Koslicki]
|
|
Full Idea:
Being the successor of the successor of 0 is more explanatory than being predecessor of 3 of the nature of 2, since it mirrors more closely the method by which 2 is constructed from a basic entity, 0, and a relation (successor) taken as primitive.
|
|
From:
Kathrin Koslicki (Varieties of Ontological Dependence [2012], 7.4)
|
|
A reaction:
This assumes numbers are 'constructed', which they are in the axiomatised system of Peano Arithmetic, but presumably the numbers were given in ordinary experience before 'construction' occurred to anyone. Nevertheless, I really like this.
|
|
17314
|
The relata of grounding are propositions or facts, but for dependence it is objects and their features [Koslicki]
|
|
Full Idea:
The relata of the grounding relation are typically taken to be facts or propositions, while the relata of ontological dependence ...are objects and their characteristics, activities, constituents and so on.
|
|
From:
Kathrin Koslicki (Varieties of Ontological Dependence [2012], 7.5 n25)
|
|
A reaction:
Interesting. Good riddance to propositions here, but this seems a bit unfair to facts, since I take facts to be in the world. Audi's concept of 'worldly facts' is what we need here.
|
|
14742
|
It can't be indeterminate whether x and y are identical; if x,y is indeterminate, then it isn't x,x [Salmon,N]
|
|
Full Idea:
Insofar as identity seems vague, it is provably mistaken. If it is vague whether x and y are identical (as in the Ship of Theseus), then x,y is definitely not the same as x,x, since the first pair is indeterminate and the second pair isn't.
|
|
From:
Nathan Salmon (Reference and Essence: seven appendices [2005], App I)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed; Gareth Evans 1978 made a similar point] This strikes me as begging the question in the Ship case, since we are shoehorning the new ship into either the slot for x or the slot for y, but that was what we couldn’t decide. No rough identity?
|
|
17309
|
For Fine, essences are propositions true because of identity, so they are just real definitions [Koslicki]
|
|
Full Idea:
Fine assumes that essences can be identified with collections of propositions that are true in virtue of the identity of a particular object, or objects. ...There is not, on this approach, much of a distinction between essences and real definitions.
|
|
From:
Kathrin Koslicki (Varieties of Ontological Dependence [2012], 7.4)
|
|
A reaction:
This won't do, because the essence of a physical object is not a set of propositions, it is some aspects of the object itself, which are described in a definition. Koslicki notes that psuché is an essence, and the soul is hardly a set of propositions!
|
|
13983
|
Representation assumes you know the ideas, and the reality, and the relation between the two [Ryle]
|
|
Full Idea:
The theory of Representative Ideas begs the whole question, by assuming a) that we can know these 'Ideas', b) that we can know the realities they represent, and c) we can know a particular 'idea' to be representative of a particular reality.
|
|
From:
Gilbert Ryle (Are there propositions? [1930], 'Objections')
|
|
A reaction:
Personally I regard the ideas as immediate (rather than acquired by some knowledge process), and I am dimly hoping that they represent reality (or I'm in deep trouble), and I am struggling to piece together the reality they represent. I'm happy with that.
|
|
17317
|
A good explanation captures the real-world dependence among the phenomena [Koslicki]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is plausible to think that an explanation, when successful, captures or represents (by argument, or a why? question) an underlying real-world relation of dependence which obtains among the phenomena cited.
|
|
From:
Kathrin Koslicki (Varieties of Ontological Dependence [2012], 7.6)
|
|
A reaction:
She cites causal dependence as an example. I'm incline to think that 'grounding' is a better word for the target of good explanations than is 'dependence' (which can, surely, be mutual, where ground has the directionality needed for explanation).
|
|
13981
|
Several people can believe one thing, or make the same mistake, or share one delusion [Ryle]
|
|
Full Idea:
We ordinarily find no difficulty in saying of a given thing that several people believe it and so, if they think it false, 'make the same mistake' or 'labour under the same delusion'.
|
|
From:
Gilbert Ryle (Are there propositions? [1930], IV)
|
|
A reaction:
Ryle is playing devil's advocate, but this (like 13980) strikes me as quite good support for propositions. I suppose you can describe these phenomena as assent to sentences, but they might be very different sentences to express the same delusion.
|
|
13989
|
There are no propositions; they are just sentences, used for thinking, which link to facts in a certain way [Ryle]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are no substantial propositions...There is just a relation between grammatical structure and the logical structure of facts. 'Proposition' denotes the same as 'sentence' or 'statement'. A proposition is not what I think, but what I think or talk in.
|
|
From:
Gilbert Ryle (Are there propositions? [1930], 'Conclusions')
|
|
A reaction:
The conclusion of Ryle's discussion, but I found his support for propositions much more convincing than his critique of them, or his attempt at an alternative linguistic account. He never mentioned animals, so he self-evidently hasn't grasped the problem.
|
|
13982
|
If we accept true propositions, it is hard to reject false ones, and even nonsensical ones [Ryle]
|
|
Full Idea:
All the arguments for the subsistence of true propositions seem to hold good for the subsistence of false ones. We might even have to find room for absurd or nonsensical ones like 'some round squares are not red-headed'.
|
|
From:
Gilbert Ryle (Are there propositions? [1930], 'Objections')
|
|
A reaction:
A particularly nice example of a Category Mistake from the man who made them famous. Why can't we just make belief a proposition attitude, so I equally believe 'sea is blue', 'grass is pink' and 'trees are bifocal', but the status of my belief varies?
|