Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Why coherence is not enough', 'The Problem of the Essential Indexical' and 'Euthyphro'

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


11 ideas

11. Knowledge Aims / A. Knowledge / 4. Belief / b. Elements of beliefs
Indexicals are a problem for beliefs being just subject-proposition relations [Perry]
     Full Idea: The essential indexical is a problem for the view that belief is a relation between subjects and propositions conceived as bearers of truth and falsity.
     From: John Perry (The Problem of the Essential Indexical [1979], 'Intro')
     A reaction: My immediate reaction would be that it depends on how you conceive of 'propositions'. If they are objective, you have a problem. I take them to be subjective events in brains, and the indexical meaning to be evident within the proposition.
13. Knowledge Criteria / A. Justification Problems / 2. Justification Challenges / a. Agrippa's trilemma
There are five possible responses to the problem of infinite regress in justification [Cleve]
     Full Idea: Sceptics respond to the regress problem by denying knowledge; Foundationalists accept justifications without reasons; Positists say reasons terminate is mere posits; Coherentists say mutual support is justification; Infinitists accept the regress.
     From: James Van Cleve (Why coherence is not enough [2005], I)
     A reaction: A nice map of the territory. The doubts of Scepticism are not strong enough for anyone to embrace the view; Foundationalist destroy knowledge (?), as do Positists; Infinitism is a version of Coherentism - which is the winner.
13. Knowledge Criteria / B. Internal Justification / 4. Foundationalism / a. Foundationalism
Modern foundationalists say basic beliefs are fallible, and coherence is relevant [Cleve]
     Full Idea: Contemporary foundationalists are seldom of the strong Cartesian variety: they do not insist that basic beliefs be absolutely certain. They also tend to allow that coherence can enhance justification.
     From: James Van Cleve (Why coherence is not enough [2005], III)
     A reaction: It strikes me that they have got onto a slippery slope. How certain are the basic beliefs? How do you evaluate their certainty? Could incoherence in their implications undermine them? Skyscrapers need perfect foundations.
13. Knowledge Criteria / E. Relativism / 6. Relativism Critique
Do the gods also hold different opinions about what is right and honourable? [Plato]
     Full Idea: Do the gods too hold different opinions about what is right, and similarly about what is honourable and dishonourable, good and bad?
     From: Plato (Euthyphro [c.398 BCE], 07e)
19. Language / C. Assigning Meanings / 9. Indexical Semantics
If we replace 'I' in sentences about me, they are different beliefs and explanations of behaviour [Perry]
     Full Idea: If I leave a trail of sugar, and realise 'that I am making a mess', ...when we replace the word 'I' with other designations of me, we no longer have an explanation of my behaviour, or an attribution of the same belief, so it is an 'essential indexical'.
     From: John Perry (The Problem of the Essential Indexical [1979], 'Intro')
     A reaction: [compressed] A famous observation of Perry's, which leads him to challenge traditional accounts of belief and of propositions. I don't think I see a problem, if we have a thoroughly non-linguistic account of essentially unambiguous propositions.
Indexicals individuate certain belief states, helping in explanation and prediction [Perry]
     Full Idea: We use sentences with indexicals or relativized propositions to individuate belief states, for the purposes of classifying believers in ways useful for explanation and prediction.
     From: John Perry (The Problem of the Essential Indexical [1979], 'Obvious')
     A reaction: He goes on to apparently connect this with some sort of moral integrity involved in 'owning up' to the fact that the person in question is you (who has spilled the sugar etc.).
19. Language / D. Propositions / 6. Propositions Critique
Indexicals reveal big problems with the traditional idea of a proposition [Perry]
     Full Idea: The problem of the essential indexical reveals that something is badly wrong with the traditional doctrine of propositions.
     From: John Perry (The Problem of the Essential Indexical [1979], 'Prob')
     A reaction: See the reaction to 12149. The traditional view of propositions, or at least Russell's view, seems to be that they are same as facts, which strikes me as daft. I take propositions to be brain events, probably expressed in mentalese.
27. Natural Reality / D. Time / 2. Passage of Time / c. Tenses and time
Tense is essential for thought and action [Perry, by Le Poidevin]
     Full Idea: Tense plays a crucial role in thought and action.
     From: report of John Perry (The Problem of the Essential Indexical [1979]) by Robin Le Poidevin - Past, Present and Future of Debate about Tense 3 a
     A reaction: This is important, because much of our metaphysics is dominated by a detached 'scientific' description of reality, which is given a rather passive character. If processes take centre stage, which they should, then our own processes are part of it.
Actual tensed sentences cannot be tenseless, because they can cite their own context [Perry, by Le Poidevin]
     Full Idea: In the new tenseless theory, no tensed token sentence can be equivalent to a tenseless token, because the former, unlike the latter, draws attention to the context in which it is tokened.
     From: report of John Perry (The Problem of the Essential Indexical [1979]) by Robin Le Poidevin - Past, Present and Future of Debate about Tense 3 a
     A reaction: So the problem about indexicals was worrying fans of the tenseless B-series view of time (and so it should). I'm inclined to translate sentences containing indexicals into their actual propositions, which tend to avoid them. 'Time/person of utterance'.
28. God / A. Divine Nature / 6. Divine Morality / b. Euthyphro question
It seems that the gods love things because they are pious, rather than making them pious by loving them [Plato]
     Full Idea: So things are loved by the gods because they are pious, and not pious because they are loved? It seems so.
     From: Plato (Euthyphro [c.398 BCE], 10e)
     A reaction: Socrates' answer to the Euthyphro Question (see Idea 336). The form of piety precedes the gods.
Is what is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because they love it? (the 'Euthyphro Question') [Plato]
     Full Idea: Is what is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because they love it?
     From: Plato (Euthyphro [c.398 BCE], 10a)
     A reaction: The famous Euthyphro Question, the key question about the supposed religious basis of morality. The answer of Socrates is Idea 337.