40 ideas
18806 | Frege thought traditional categories had psychological and linguistic impurities [Frege, by Rumfitt] |
Full Idea: Frege rejected the traditional categories as importing psychological and linguistic impurities into logic. | |
From: report of Gottlob Frege (Function and Concept [1891]) by Ian Rumfitt - The Boundary Stones of Thought 1.2 | |
A reaction: Resisting such impurities is the main motivation for making logic entirely symbolic, but it doesn't follow that the traditional categories have to be dropped. |
8490 | First-level functions have objects as arguments; second-level functions take functions as arguments [Frege] |
Full Idea: Just as functions are fundamentally different from objects, so also functions whose arguments are and must be functions are fundamentally different from functions whose arguments are objects. The latter are first-level, the former second-level, functions. | |
From: Gottlob Frege (Function and Concept [1891], p.38) | |
A reaction: In 1884 he called it 'second-order'. This is the standard distinction between first- and second-order logic. The first quantifies over objects, the second over intensional entities such as properties and propositions. |
8492 | Relations are functions with two arguments [Frege] |
Full Idea: Functions of one argument are concepts; functions of two arguments are relations. | |
From: Gottlob Frege (Function and Concept [1891], p.39) | |
A reaction: Nowadays we would say 'two or more'. Another interesting move in the aim of analytic philosophy to reduce the puzzling features of the world to mathematical logic. There is, of course, rather more to some relations than being two-argument functions. |
8487 | Arithmetic is a development of logic, so arithmetical symbolism must expand into logical symbolism [Frege] |
Full Idea: I am of the opinion that arithmetic is a further development of logic, which leads to the requirement that the symbolic language of arithmetic must be expanded into a logical symbolism. | |
From: Gottlob Frege (Function and Concept [1891], p.30) | |
A reaction: This may the the one key idea at the heart of modern analytic philosophy (even though logicism may be a total mistake!). Logic and arithmetical foundations become the master of ontology, instead of the servant. The jury is out on the whole enterprise. |
18899 | Frege takes the existence of horses to be part of their concept [Frege, by Sommers] |
Full Idea: Frege regarded the existence of horses as a property of the concept 'horse'. | |
From: report of Gottlob Frege (Function and Concept [1891]) by Fred Sommers - Intellectual Autobiography 'Realism' |
4028 | Frege allows either too few properties (as extensions) or too many (as predicates) [Mellor/Oliver on Frege] |
Full Idea: Frege's theory of properties (which he calls 'concepts') yields too few properties, by identifying coextensive properties, and also too many, by letting every predicate express a property. | |
From: comment on Gottlob Frege (Function and Concept [1891]) by DH Mellor / A Oliver - Introduction to 'Properties' §2 | |
A reaction: Seems right; one extension may have two properties (have heart/kidneys), two predicates might express the same property. 'Cutting nature at the joints' covers properties as well as objects. |
8489 | The concept 'object' is too simple for analysis; unlike a function, it is an expression with no empty place [Frege] |
Full Idea: I regard a regular definition of 'object' as impossible, since it is too simple to admit of logical analysis. Briefly: an object is anything that is not a function, so that an expression for it does not contain any empty place. | |
From: Gottlob Frege (Function and Concept [1891], p.32) | |
A reaction: Here is the core of the programme for deriving our ontology from our logic and language, followed through by Russell and Quine. Once we extend objects beyond the physical, it becomes incredibly hard to individuate them. |
2730 | Because 'gold is malleable' is necessary does not mean that it is analytic [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: Taking the proposition that gold is malleable to be necessary does not commit one to considering it analytic. | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], IV p.116) |
2715 | Beliefs are based on perception, memory, introspection or reason [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: The four basic kinds of belief are rooted in perception, memory, introspective consciousness, and reason. | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], Intr.p.7) |
2735 | Could you have a single belief on its own? [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: Could one have just a single belief? | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], VII p.198) |
2736 | We can make certain of what we know, so knowing does not entail certainty [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: The possibility of making certain of what we already know suggests that knowing a proposition does not entail its being certain. | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], VIII p.220) |
2721 | If you gradually remove a book's sensory properties, what is left at the end? [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: If you imagine subtracting a book's sensory properties one by one, what is left of it? | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], I p.42) |
2722 | Sense-data theory is indirect realism, but phenomenalism is direct irrealism [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: Where the sense-datum theory is an indirect realism, phenomenalism is a direct irrealism. | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], I p.43) |
2727 | Red and green being exclusive colours seems to be rationally graspable but not analytic [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: The proposition that nothing is red and green all over at once is not analytic, but it is rationally graspable, so it seems to be an a priori synthetic proposition. | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], IV p.100) |
2728 | The concepts needed for a priori thought may come from experience [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: I may well need experience to acquire the concepts needed for knowledge of the a priori, such as the concept of a colour. | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], IV p.103) |
2717 | How could I see a field and believe nothing regarding it? [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: How could I see a field and believe nothing regarding it? | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], I p.20) |
2716 | To see something as a field, I obviously need the concept of a field [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: The propositional belief which portrays what I see in front of me AS a field requires my having a concept of one. | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], I p.17) | |
A reaction: To me this immediately invites the question of what a cow or horse experiences when they look at a familiar field. They know how to leave and enter it, and register its boundaries and qualities. Concepts? |
2719 | Sense data imply representative realism, possibly only representing primary qualities [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: A sense-datum theory might be called a representative realism because it conceives perception as a relation in which sense-data represent perceived external (hence real) objects to us. For Locke they were resemblances only of primary qualities. | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], I p.33) |
2720 | Sense-data (and the rival 'adverbial' theory) are to explain illusions and hallucinations [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: The sense-datum theory is mainly to explain hallucinations and illusions, though there might be other theories, such as the 'adverbial' theory. | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], I p.36) |
2718 | Perception is first simple, then objectual (with concepts) and then propositional [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: Simple perceiving gives rise to objectual perceiving (attaching concepts to the object), which gives rise to propositional perceiving. | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], I p.23) |
2741 | The principles of justification have to be a priori [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: The crucial principles of justification are a priori. | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], X p.311) |
2729 | Virtually all rationalists assert that we can have knowledge of synthetic a priori truths [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: Rationalists virtually always assert or imply that, in addition to knowledge of analytic truths, there is knowledge of synthetic a priori truths. | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], IV p.105) |
2725 | To remember something is to know it [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: Remembering something is so entails knowing that it is so. | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], II p.68) | |
A reaction: Clearly I can say I "remember" x, but be wrong. Presumably we then say that I didn't really remember, which requires success, like "I know". It is true (as with "know") that as soon as I say that the something is false, I can't claim to remember it. |
2724 | I might remember someone I can't recall or image, by recognising them on meeting [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: If I can neither recall nor image Jane I can still remember her, for on seeing her I might recognise her, and might remember, and even recall, our last meeting. | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], II p.66) | |
A reaction: Hm. I can hardly claim to remember her if I have no concept of her, and don't recall our last meeting. If seeing her triggers recognition, I would say that I NOW remember her, but I didn't before. Memory is more conscious than Audi claims. |
2731 | Justification is either unanchored (infinite or circular), or anchored (in knowledge or non-knowledge) [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: There are four possible kinds of epistemic chain: infinite and unanchored, circular and unanchored, anchored in a belief which is not knowledge, and anchored in a belief which is bedrock knowledge. | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], VII p.183) | |
A reaction: About right, though I don't think 'chain' is the right word for what is proposed if justification is to be coherent. The justifications float like lilies in the pond of reason, and a Self (Monet?) seems needed to assess the picture |
2739 | Internalism about justification implies that there is a right to believe something [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: Internalists about justification tend to conceive of it as a matter of having a right to believe something. | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], VIII p.234) | |
A reaction: I'm an internalist, but I don't understand this, unless it refers to the social aspect of justification. Can I grant myself internal rights? I can justify my belief to other people. |
2732 | Maths may be consistent with observations, but not coherent [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: That 7+5=12 and that carrots are nourishing are mutually consistent, but do not exhibit coherence. | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], VII p.192) | |
A reaction: This shows how difficult it would be to define 'coherent'. Is 'carrots are nourishing' coherent with 'fish are nourishing'? Is the battle of Hastings coherent with the battle of Waterloo? |
2733 | It is very hard to show how much coherence is needed for justification [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: It is very difficult to specify when an explanatory relation generates enough coherence to create justification. | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], VII p.193) | |
A reaction: I take coherence to be the key concept in epistemology, and quite impossible to define. This is why the 'space of reasons' is a useful concept. It is a courtroom, in which each case is different. |
2734 | A consistent madman could have a very coherent belief system [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: A schizophrenic who thinks he is Napoleon, if he has a completely consistent story with enough interlocking details, may have a belief system that is superbly coherent. | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], VII p.194) | |
A reaction: This is an exaggeration, but the fact is that one isolated lie is totally coherent, so coherence can only emerge when a system is large. Sense experience must be central to coherence. |
2738 | Consistent accurate prediction looks like knowledge without justified belief [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: If someone consistently prophesied the winners of horse races, it appears that this man knows who will win the races, but surely he does not have justified beliefs as to who will win? | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], VIII p.229) | |
A reaction: This is where internalists and externalists (notably reliabilists) sharply part company. IF a reliable clairvoyant appeared, we would eventually accept them as a knower. But they DON'T appear, because knowledge needs justification! |
2740 | A reliability theory of knowledge seems to involve truth as correspondence [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: If one favours a reliability theory of knowledge (which is externalist) the correspondence theory of truth seems the most appropriate. | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], VIII p.243) | |
A reaction: Sounds right. Coherence implies some sort of internal assessment, whereas correspondence just needs to plugged into the facts. I like coherence justification and correspondence truth. |
2737 | 'Reliable' is a very imprecise term, and may even mean 'justified' [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: Reliabilism cannot specify how reliable a process must be before it grounds knowledge, and it cannot specify what is reliable in the first place. 'Reliable' may become circular, and may mean 'justified'. | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], VIII p.225) | |
A reaction: The first time you ever read an instrument, or talk to a stranger, you have no indication of reliability. Circularity looks like a big problem. Knowledge must precede reliability? |
7091 | The argument from analogy is not a strong inference, since the other being might be an actor or a robot [Grayling] |
Full Idea: The argument from analogy is a weak one, because it does not logically guarantee the inference I draw to the other's inner states, for he might be dissimulating or acting, or may even be a cleverly contrived robot which feels nothing. | |
From: A.C. Grayling (Wittgenstein [1988], Ch.3) | |
A reaction: This gives the impression that for an argument to be strong it must logically guarantee its inference. It strikes me that analogy is a good reason for believing in other minds, but that is because I am looking for the best explanation, not logical proof. |
2726 | We can be ignorant about ourselves, for example, our desires and motives [Audi,R] |
Full Idea: We can have false beliefs, or some degree of ignorance, about our own mental lives. For example, about our own dispositions, such as not believing that we have a certain ignoble desire. | |
From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], III p.83) | |
A reaction: This idea, that we don't know ourselves, has become a commonplace of recent philosophy, but I am unconvinced. Mostly we know only too well that we harbour a base desire, and we feel a creeping sense of shame. Total ignorance is very rare. |
9947 | Concepts are the ontological counterparts of predicative expressions [Frege, by George/Velleman] |
Full Idea: Concepts, for Frege, are the ontological counterparts of predicative expressions. | |
From: report of Gottlob Frege (Function and Concept [1891]) by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Ch.2 | |
A reaction: That sounds awfully like what many philosophers call 'universals'. Frege, as a platonist (at least about numbers), I would take to be in sympathy with that. At least we can say that concepts seem to be properties. |
10319 | An assertion about the concept 'horse' must indirectly speak of an object [Frege, by Hale] |
Full Idea: Frege had a notorious difficulty over the concept 'horse', when he suggests that if we wish to assert something about a concept, we are obliged to proceed indirectly by speaking of an object that represents it. | |
From: report of Gottlob Frege (Function and Concept [1891], Ch.2.II) by Bob Hale - Abstract Objects | |
A reaction: This sounds like the thin end of a wedge. The great champion of objects is forced to accept them here as a façon de parler, when elsewhere they have ontological status. |
8488 | A concept is a function whose value is always a truth-value [Frege] |
Full Idea: A concept in logic is closely connected with what we call a function. Indeed, we may say at once: a concept is a function whose value is always a truth-value. ..I give the name 'function' to what is meant by the 'unsaturated' part. | |
From: Gottlob Frege (Function and Concept [1891], p.30) | |
A reaction: So a function becomes a concept when the variable takes a value. Problems arise when the value is vague, or the truth-value is indeterminable. |
9948 | Unlike objects, concepts are inherently incomplete [Frege, by George/Velleman] |
Full Idea: For Frege, concepts differ from objects in being inherently incomplete in nature. | |
From: report of Gottlob Frege (Function and Concept [1891]) by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Ch.2 | |
A reaction: This is because they are 'unsaturated', needing a quantified variable to complete the sentence. This could be a pointer towards Quine's view of properties, as simply an intrinsic feature of predication about objects, with no separate identity. |
4972 | I may regard a thought about Phosphorus as true, and the same thought about Hesperus as false [Frege] |
Full Idea: From sameness of meaning there does not follow sameness of thought expressed. A fact about the Morning Star may express something different from a fact about the Evening Star, as someone may regard one as true and the other false. | |
From: Gottlob Frege (Function and Concept [1891], p.14) | |
A reaction: This all gets clearer if we distinguish internalist and externalist theories of content. Why take sides on this? Why not just ask 'what is in the speaker's head?', 'what does the sentence mean in the community?', and 'what is the corresponding situation?' |
8491 | The Ontological Argument fallaciously treats existence as a first-level concept [Frege] |
Full Idea: The ontological proof of God's existence suffers from the fallacy of treating existence as a first-level concept. | |
From: Gottlob Frege (Function and Concept [1891], p.38 n) | |
A reaction: [See Idea 8490 for first- and second-order functions] This is usually summarised as the idea that existence is a quantifier rather than a predicate. |