|
8210
|
Deconstructing philosophy gives the history of concepts, and the repressions behind them [Derrida]
|
|
Full Idea:
To 'deconstruct' philosophy would be to think the structured genealogy of philosophy's concepts, but at the same time determine what this history has been able to dissimulate or forbid, making itself into history by this motivated repression.
|
|
From:
Jacques Derrida (Implications [1967], p.5)
|
|
A reaction:
All of this type of philosophy is motivated by what I think of as (I'm afraid!) a rather adolescent belief that we are all being 'repressed', and that somehow, if we think hard enough, we can all become 'free', and then everything will be fine.
|
|
8211
|
The movement of 'différance' is the root of all the oppositional concepts in our language [Derrida]
|
|
Full Idea:
The movement of 'différance', as that which produces different things, that which differentiates, is the common root of all the oppositional concepts that mark our language, such as sensible/intelligible, intuition/signification, nature/culture etc.
|
|
From:
Jacques Derrida (Implications [1967], p.7)
|
|
A reaction:
'Différance' is a word coined by Derrida, and his most famous concept. At first glance, the concept of a thing which is the source of all differentiation sounds like a fiction.
|
|
19076
|
Coherence theories differ over the coherence relation, and over the set of proposition with which to cohere [Young,JO]
|
|
Full Idea:
Coherence theories of truth differ on their accounts of the coherence relation, and on their accounts of the set (or sets) of propositions with which true propositions occur (the 'specified set').
|
|
From:
James O. Young (The Coherence Theory of Truth [2013], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
Coherence is clearly more than consistency or mutual entailment, and I like to invoke explanation. The set has to be large, or the theory is absurd (as two absurdities can 'cohere'). So very large, or very very large, or maximally large?
|
|
19077
|
Two propositions could be consistent with your set, but inconsistent with one another [Young,JO]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is unsatisfactory for the coherence relation to be consistency, because two propositions could be consistent with a 'specified set', and yet be inconsistent with each other. That would imply they are both true, which is impossible.
|
|
From:
James O. Young (The Coherence Theory of Truth [2013], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
I'm not convinced by this. You first accept P because it is consistent with the set; then Q turns up, which is consistent with everything in the set except P. So you have to choose between them, and might eject P. Your set was too small.
|
|
19078
|
Coherence with actual beliefs, or our best beliefs, or ultimate ideal beliefs? [Young,JO]
|
|
Full Idea:
One extreme for the specified set is the largest consistent set of propositions currently believed by actual people. A moderate position makes it the limit of people's enquiries. The other extreme is what would be believed by an omniscient being.
|
|
From:
James O. Young (The Coherence Theory of Truth [2013], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
One not considered is the set of propositions believed by each individual person. Thoroughgoing relativists might well embrace that one. Peirce and Putnam liked the moderate one. I'm taken with the last one, since truth is an ideal, not a phenomenon.
|
|
19074
|
Are truth-condtions other propositions (coherence) or features of the world (correspondence)? [Young,JO]
|
|
Full Idea:
For the coherence theory of truth, the truth conditions of propositions consist in other propositions. The correspondence theory, in contrast, states that the truth conditions of propositions are ... objective features of the world.
|
|
From:
James O. Young (The Coherence Theory of Truth [2013], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
It is obviously rather important for your truth-conditions theory of meaning that you are clear about your theory of truth. A correspondence theory is evidently taken for granted, even in possible worlds versions.
|
|
19082
|
Coherence truth suggests truth-condtions are assertion-conditions, which need knowledge of justification [Young,JO]
|
|
Full Idea:
Coherence theorists can argue that the truth conditions of a proposition are those under which speakers tend to assert it, ...and that speakers can only make a practice of asserting a proposition under conditions they can recognise as justifying it.
|
|
From:
James O. Young (The Coherence Theory of Truth [2013], §2.2)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] This sounds rather verificationist, and hence wrong, since if you then asserted anything for which you didn't know the justification, that would remove its truth, and thus make it meaningless.
|
|
12759
|
There are atoms of substance, but no atoms of bulk or extension [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
Although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk [moles], that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], §11)
|
|
A reaction:
Leibniz has a constant battle for the rest of his career to explain what these 'atoms of substance' are, since they have location but no extension, they are self-sufficient yet generate force, and are non-physical but interact with matter.
|
|
12718
|
Secondary matter is active and complete; primary matter is passive and incomplete [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
I understand matter as either secondary or primary. Secondary matter is, indeed, a complete substance, but it is not merely passive; primary matter is merely passive, but it is not a complete substance. So we must add a soul or form...
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], §12), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 4
|
|
A reaction:
It sounds as if primary matter is redundant, but Garber suggests that secondary matter is just the combination of primary matter with form.
|
|
11854
|
If there is some trace of God in things, that would explain their natural force [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
If the law of God does indeed leave some vestige of him expressed in things...then it must be granted that there is a certain efficacy residing in things, a form or force such as we usually designate by the name of nature, from which the phenomena follow.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], §06)
|
|
A reaction:
I wouldn't rate this as a very promising theory of powers, but it seems to me important that Leibniz recognises the innate power in things as needing explanation. If you remove divine power, you are left with unexplained intrinsic powers.
|
|
12758
|
It is plausible to think substances contain the same immanent force seen in our free will [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
If we attribute an inherent force to our mind, a force acting immanently, then nothing forbids us to suppose that the same force would be found in other souls or forms, or, if you prefer, in the nature of substances.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], §10)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the kind of bizarre idea that you are driven to, once you start thinking that God must have a will outside nature, and then that we have the same thing. Why shouldn't such a thing pop up all over the place? Only Leibniz spots the slippery slope.
|
|
19408
|
To say that nature or the one universal substance is God is a pernicious doctrine [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
To say that nature itself or the substance of all things is God is a pernicious doctrine, recently introduced into the world or renewed by a subtle or profane author.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (On Nature Itself (De Ipsa Natura) [1698], 8)
|
|
A reaction:
The dastardly profane author is, of course, Spinoza, whom Leibniz had met in 1676. The doctrine may be pernicious to religious orthodoxy, but to me it is rather baffling, since in my understanding nature and God have almost nothing in common.
|