|
8748
|
Logical positivists incorporated geometry into logicism, saying axioms are just definitions [Carnap, by Shapiro]
|
|
Full Idea:
The logical positivists brought geometry into the fold of logicism. The axioms of, say, Euclidean geometry are simply definitions of primitive terms like 'point' and 'line'.
|
|
From:
report of Rudolph Carnap (Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology [1950]) by Stewart Shapiro - Thinking About Mathematics 5.3
|
|
A reaction:
If the concept of 'line' is actually created by its definition, then we need to know exactly what (say) 'shortest' means. If we are merely describing a line, then our definition can be 'impredicative', using other accepted concepts.
|
|
13933
|
Existence questions are 'internal' (within a framework) or 'external' (concerning the whole framework) [Carnap]
|
|
Full Idea:
We distinguish two kinds of existence questions: first, entities of a new kind within the framework; we call them 'internal questions'. Second, 'external questions', concerning the existence or reality of the system of entities as a whole.
|
|
From:
Rudolph Carnap (Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology [1950], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
This nicely disposes of many ontological difficulties, but at the price of labelling most external questions as meaningless, so that the internal answers have very little commitment, and the external (big) questions are now banned. Not for me.
|
|
13935
|
We only accept 'things' within a language with formation, testing and acceptance rules [Carnap]
|
|
Full Idea:
To accept the thing world means nothing more than to accept a certain form of language, in other words, to accept rules for forming statements and for testing, accepting, or rejecting them.
|
|
From:
Rudolph Carnap (Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology [1950], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
If you derive your metaphysics from your language, then objects are linguistic conventions. But why do we accept conventions about objects?
|
|
12699
|
A body would be endless disunited parts, if it did not have a unifying form or soul [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
Without soul or form of some kind, a body would have no being, because no part of it can be designated which does not in turn consist of more parts. Thus nothing could be designated in a body which could be called 'this thing', or a unity.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (Conspectus libelli (book outline) [1678], A6.4.1988), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 1
|
|
A reaction:
The locution 'soul or form' is disconcerting, and you have to spend some time with Leibniz to get the hang of it. The 'soul' is not intelligent, and is more like a source of action and response.
|
|
12700
|
Form or soul gives unity and duration; matter gives multiplicity and change [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
Substantial form, or soul, is the principle of unity and duration, matter is that of multiplicity and change
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (Conspectus libelli (book outline) [1678], A6.4.1398-9), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 2
|
|
A reaction:
Leibniz was a fan of the unfashionable Aristotle, and tried to put a spin on his views consonant with contemporary Hobbesian mechanistic views. Oddly, he likes the idea that 'form' is indestructable, which I don't understand.
|
|
12736
|
If we understand God and his choices, we have a priori knowledge of contingent truths [Leibniz, by Garber]
|
|
Full Idea:
Insofar as we have some insight into how God chooses, we can know a priori the laws of nature that God chooses for this best of all possible worlds. In this way, it is possible to have genuine a priori knowledge of contingent truths.
|
|
From:
report of Gottfried Leibniz (Conspectus libelli (book outline) [1678], A6.4.1998-9) by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 6
|
|
A reaction:
I think it would be doubtful whether our knowledge of God's choosings would count as a priori. How do we discover them? Ah! We derive God from the ontological argument, and his choosings from the divine perfection implied thereby.
|
|
13932
|
Empiricists tend to reject abstract entities, and to feel sympathy with nominalism [Carnap]
|
|
Full Idea:
Empiricists are in general rather suspicious with respect to any kind of abstract entities like properties, classes, relations, numbers, propositions etc. They usually feel more sympathy with nominalists than with realists (in the medieval sense).
|
|
From:
Rudolph Carnap (Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology [1950], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
The obvious reason is that you can't have sense experiences of abstract entities. I like the question 'what are they made of?' rather than the question 'how can I experience them?'.
|
|
13937
|
New linguistic claims about entities are not true or false, but just expedient, fruitful or successful [Carnap]
|
|
Full Idea:
The acceptance of new linguistic forms about entities cannot be judged as being either true or false because it is not an assertion. It can only be judged as being more or less expedient, fruitful, conducive to the aim for which the language is intended.
|
|
From:
Rudolph Carnap (Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology [1950], 3)
|
|
A reaction:
The obvious problem seems to be that a complete pack of lies might be successful for a very long time, if it plugged a critical hole in a major theory. Is success judged financially? How do we judge success without mentioning truth?
|