|
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.
|
|
14193
|
'Substance theorists' take modal properties as primitive, without structure, just falling under a sortal [Paul,LA]
|
|
Full Idea:
Some deep essentialists resist the need to explain the structure under de re modal properties, taking them as primitive. One version (which we can call 'substance theory') takes them to fall under a sortal concept, with no further explanation.
|
|
From:
L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
A very helpful identification of what Wiggins stands for, and why I disagree with him. The whole point of essences is to provide a notion that fits in with sciences, which means they must have an explanatory role, which needs structures.
|
|
14195
|
If an object's sort determines its properties, we need to ask what determines its sort [Paul,LA]
|
|
Full Idea:
If the substance essentialist holds that the sort an object belongs to determines its de re modal properties (rather than the other way round), then he needs to give an (ontological, not conceptual) explanation of what determines an object's sort.
|
|
From:
L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
See Idea 14193 for 'substance essentialism'. I find it quite incredible that anyone could think that a thing's sort could determine its properties, rather than the other way round. Even if sortals are conventional, they are not arbitrary.
|
|
14196
|
Substance essentialism says an object is multiple, as falling under various different sortals [Paul,LA]
|
|
Full Idea:
The explanation of material constitution given by substance essentialism is that there are multiple objects. A person is essentially human-shaped (falling under the human sort), while their hunk of tissue is accidentally human-shaped (as tissue).
|
|
From:
L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
At this point sortal essentialism begins to look crazy. Persons are dubious examples (with sneaky dualism involved). A bronze statue is essentially harder to dent than a clay one, because of its bronze. If you remake it of clay, it isn't the same statue.
|
|
14190
|
Deep essentialist objects have intrinsic properties that fix their nature; the shallow version makes it contextual [Paul,LA]
|
|
Full Idea:
Essentialism says that objects have their properties essentially. 'Deep' essentialists take the (nontrivial) essential properties of an object to determine its nature. 'Shallow' essentialists substitute context-dependent truths for the independent ones.
|
|
From:
L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
If the deep essence determines a things nature, we should not need to say 'nontrivial'. This is my bete noire, the confusion of essential properties with necessary ones, where necessary properties (or predicates, at least) can indeed be trivial.
|
|
14189
|
'Modal realists' believe in many concrete worlds, 'actualists' in just this world, 'ersatzists' in abstract other worlds [Paul,LA]
|
|
Full Idea:
A 'modal realist' believes that there are many concrete worlds, while the 'actualist' believes in only one concrete world, the actual world. The 'ersatzist' is an actualist who takes nonactual possible worlds and their contents to be abstracta.
|
|
From:
L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
My view is something like that modal realism is wrong, and actualism is right, and possible worlds (if they really are that useful) are convenient abstract fictions, constructed (if we have any sense) out of the real possibilities in the actual world.
|
|
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.
|
|
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?
|
|
5125
|
Virtue ethics might involve judgements about the virtues of actions, rather than character [Harman]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are variants of virtue ethics that do not require character traits in the ordinary sense. For example, moral thinking might be explicated by appeal to judgements about whether particular actions are just or courageous or whatever.
|
|
From:
Gilbert Harman (Moral Philosophy meets social psychology [1999], 10.7.1.1)
|
|
A reaction:
A very interesting proposal (from Judith Jarvis Thomson). This would flatly reject Aristotle, and one presumes that the judgement about the virtue of the action would largely be a matter of pondering cultural conventions (or, perhaps, consequences).
|