Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'God and Human Attributes', 'Carnap and Logical Truth' and 'Against Elections'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these texts


20 ideas

5. Theory of Logic / A. Overview of Logic / 1. Overview of Logic
In order to select the logic justified by experience, we would need to use a lot of logic [Boghossian on Quine]
     Full Idea: Quine ends up with the logic that is maximally justified by experience, ...but a large number of the core principles of logic will have to be used to select the logic that is maximally justified by experience.
     From: comment on Willard Quine (Carnap and Logical Truth [1954]) by Paul Boghossian - Knowledge of Logic p.233
     A reaction: In order to grasp some core principles of logic, you will probably need a certain amount of experience. I take logic to be an abstracted feature of reality (unless it is extended by pure fictions). Some basic logic may be hard wired in us.
5. Theory of Logic / A. Overview of Logic / 6. Classical Logic
Elementary logic requires truth-functions, quantifiers (and variables), identity, and also sets of variables [Quine]
     Full Idea: Elementary logic, as commonly systematized nowadays, comprises truth-function theory (involving 'or', 'and', 'not' etc.), quantifiers (and their variables), and identity theory ('='). In addition, set theory requires classes among values of variables.
     From: Willard Quine (Carnap and Logical Truth [1954], II)
     A reaction: Quine is famous for trying to squeeze properties out of the picture, which would then block higher-order logics (which quantify over properties). Quine's list gives a nice programme for a student of the philosophy of logic to understand.
5. Theory of Logic / B. Logical Consequence / 1. Logical Consequence
Logical consequence is marked by being preserved under all nonlogical substitutions [Quine, by Sider]
     Full Idea: Quine's view of logical consequence is that it is when there is no way of uniformly substituting nonlogical expressions in the premises and consequences so that the premises all remain true but the consequence now becomes false.
     From: report of Willard Quine (Carnap and Logical Truth [1954], p.103) by Theodore Sider - Logic for Philosophy 1.5
     A reaction: One might just say that the consequence holds if you insert consistent variables for the nonlogical terms, which looks like Aristotle's view of the matter.
5. Theory of Logic / E. Structures of Logic / 2. Logical Connectives / a. Logical connectives
If logical truths essentially depend on logical constants, we had better define the latter [Hacking on Quine]
     Full Idea: Quine said a logical truth is a truth in which only logical constants occur essentially, ...but then a fruitful definition of 'logical constant' is called for.
     From: comment on Willard Quine (Carnap and Logical Truth [1954]) by Ian Hacking - What is Logic? §02
5. Theory of Logic / L. Paradox / 5. Paradoxes in Set Theory / a. Set theory paradoxes
Set theory was struggling with higher infinities, when new paradoxes made it baffling [Quine]
     Full Idea: Unlike elementary logic, the truths of set theory are not obvious. Set theory was straining at the leash of intuition ever since Cantor discovered higher infinites; and with the added impetus of the paradoxes of set theory the leash snapped.
     From: Willard Quine (Carnap and Logical Truth [1954], II)
     A reaction: This problem seems to have forced Quine into platonism about sets, because he felt they were essential for mathematics and science, but couldn't be constructed with precision. So they must be real, but we don't quite understand them.
6. Mathematics / C. Sources of Mathematics / 6. Logicism / d. Logicism critique
If set theory is not actually a branch of logic, then Frege's derivation of arithmetic would not be from logic [Quine]
     Full Idea: We might say that set theory is not really logic, but a branch of mathematics. This would deprive 'includes' of the status of a logical word. Frege's derivation of arithmetic would then cease to count as a derivation from logic: for he used set theory.
     From: Willard Quine (Carnap and Logical Truth [1954], II)
     A reaction: Quine has been making the point that higher infinities and the paradoxes undermine the status of set theory as logic, but he decides to continue thinking of set theory as logic. Critics of logicism frequently ask whether the reduction is to logic.
8. Modes of Existence / E. Nominalism / 1. Nominalism / b. Nominalism about universals
Commitment to universals is as arbitrary or pragmatic as the adoption of a new system of bookkeeping [Quine]
     Full Idea: One's hypothesis as to there being universals is at bottom just as arbitrary or pragmatic a matter as one's adoption of a new brand of set theory or even a new system of bookkeeping.
     From: Willard Quine (Carnap and Logical Truth [1954], x)
     A reaction: This spells out clearly the strongly pragmatist vein in Quine's thinking.
10. Modality / A. Necessity / 6. Logical Necessity
Frege moved Kant's question about a priori synthetic to 'how is logical certainty possible?' [Quine]
     Full Idea: When Kant's arithmetical examples of a priori synthetic judgements were sweepingly disqualified by Frege's reduction of arithmetic to logic, attention moved to the less tendentious and logically prior question 'How is logical certainty possible?'
     From: Willard Quine (Carnap and Logical Truth [1954], I)
     A reaction: A nice summary of the story so far, from someone who should know. This still leaves the question open of whether any synthetic truths can be derived from the logical certainties which are available.
12. Knowledge Sources / A. A Priori Knowledge / 7. A Priori from Convention
Examination of convention in the a priori begins to blur the distinction with empirical knowledge [Quine]
     Full Idea: In trying to make sense of the role of convention in a priori knowledge, the very distinction between a priori and empirical begins to waver and dissolve.
     From: Willard Quine (Carnap and Logical Truth [1954], VI)
     A reaction: This is the next stage in the argument after Wittgenstein presents the apriori as nothing more than what arises from truth tables. The rationalists react by taking us back to the original 'natural light of reason' view. Then we go round again...
24. Political Theory / B. Nature of a State / 2. State Legitimacy / a. Sovereignty
Nowadays sovereignty (once the basis of a state) has become relative [Reybrouck]
     Full Idea: In the twenty-first century, sovereignty, once the basis of the nation state, has become a relative concept. ...Powerlessness is the key word of our time.
     From: David van Reybrouck (Against Elections [2013], 1 'Crisis')
     A reaction: The point is that nation states now have limited power, in the face of larger unions, multinational companies, and global problems.
24. Political Theory / B. Nature of a State / 2. State Legitimacy / d. General will
Today it seems almost impossible to learn the will of the people [Reybrouck]
     Full Idea: Imagine having to develop a system today that would express the will of the people.
     From: David van Reybrouck (Against Elections [2013], 2 'electoral')
     A reaction: Our recent Brexit referendum didn't do the job, because it was confined to a single question. Van Reybrouck laughs at the idea of expressing it through a polling both. How about a council of 500, drawn by lots? Meet for three months.
There are no united monolothic 'peoples', and no 'national gut feelings' [Reybrouck]
     Full Idea: There is no such thing as one monolithic 'people' (every society has its diversity), nor is there anything that could be described as a 'national gut feeling'.
     From: David van Reybrouck (Against Elections [2013], 2 'populism')
     A reaction: Rousseau yearned for a republic no bigger than Geneva. I don't see why we should give up on the general will in huge modern societies. It is likely, though, to be an anodyne lowest common denominator. No bad thing, perhaps.
24. Political Theory / C. Ruling a State / 2. Leaders / d. Elites
Technocrats may be efficient, but they lose legitimacy as soon as they do unpopular things [Reybrouck]
     Full Idea: Efficiency does not automatically generate legitimacy, and faith in the technocrat melts away as soon as spending cuts are implemented.
     From: David van Reybrouck (Against Elections [2013], 2 'democracy')
     A reaction: They can hang on to legitimacy if they can come up with some technical mumbo-jumbo like 'monetarism' which the people will swallow.
Technocrats are expert managers, who replace politicians, and can be long-term and unpopular [Reybrouck]
     Full Idea: Technocracy is a system where experts are charged with looking after the public interest. ...Technocrats are managers who replace politicians, so they can concentrate on long-term solutions and announce unpopular measures.
     From: David van Reybrouck (Against Elections [2013], 2 'technocracy')
     A reaction: I like technocrats. They just need to be accountable. In the UK we have far more respect for the governor of the Bank of England than for any politician.
24. Political Theory / D. Ideologies / 5. Democracy / a. Nature of democracy
Democracy is the best compromise between legitimacy and efficiency [Reybrouck]
     Full Idea: Democracy is the least bad form of all governments precisely because it attempts to find a healthy balance between legitimacy and efficiency.
     From: David van Reybrouck (Against Elections [2013], 1 'Crisis')
     A reaction: There seems to be a widespread feeling that democracy is declining in efficiency, and that may be because our remoteness from government decreases legitimacy, so we have less commitment to getting things done.
24. Political Theory / D. Ideologies / 5. Democracy / b. Consultation
A referendum result arises largely from ignorance [Reybrouck]
     Full Idea: In a referendum you ask everyone to vote on a subject that usually only a few know anything about.
     From: David van Reybrouck (Against Elections [2013], 4 'remedies')
     A reaction: Tell me about it! I was forced to vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum, and felt thoroughly out of my depth on such a complex economic question.
24. Political Theory / D. Ideologies / 5. Democracy / c. Direct democracy
You don't really govern people if you don't involve them [Reybrouck]
     Full Idea: Even with the best of intentions, those who govern the people without involving them, govern them only in a limited sense.
     From: David van Reybrouck (Against Elections [2013], 4 intro)
     A reaction: But if they are highly involved, who is governing who? Do we want the people to become happier about being governed, or do we want them more involved in doing the governing?
24. Political Theory / D. Ideologies / 5. Democracy / d. Representative democracy
In the 18th century democratic lots lost out to elections, that gave us a non-hereditary aristocracy [Reybrouck]
     Full Idea: The drawing of lots, the most democratic of all political instruments, lost out in the eighteenth century to elections, a procedure that was not invented as a democratic instrument, but as a means of bringing a new non-hereditary aristocracy to power.
     From: David van Reybrouck (Against Elections [2013], 3 'democratisation')
     A reaction: This is the basic thesis of Van Reybrouck's book. He argues for the extensive use of lots ('sortition') for getting people involved in modern democracies. I love the idea that in a good democracy you get an occasional chance to rule.
Representative elections were developed in order to avoid democracy [Reybrouck]
     Full Idea: Bernard Manin (1995) revealed how, immediately after the American and French revolutions, the electoral-representative system was chosen with the intention of keeping at bay the tumult of democracy.
     From: David van Reybrouck (Against Elections [2013], 3 'procedure')
     A reaction: At the time America and France were two of the largest countries in the world, and communication and transport were slow. That has changed.
28. God / B. Proving God / 2. Proofs of Reason / c. Moral Argument
God must be fit for worship, but worship abandons morally autonomy, but there is no God [Rachels, by Davies,B]
     Full Idea: Rachels argues 1) If any being is God, he must be a fitting object of worship, 2) No being could be a fitting object of worship, since worship requires the abandonment of one's role as an autonomous moral agent, so 3) There cannot be a being who is God.
     From: report of James Rachels (God and Human Attributes [1971], 7 p.334) by Brian Davies - Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion 9 'd morality'
     A reaction: Presumably Lionel Messi can be a fitting object of worship without being God. Since the problem is with being worshipful, rather than with being God, should I infer that Messi doesn't exist?