86 ideas
2516 | Most of philosophy begins where science leaves off [Katz] |
Full Idea: Philosophy, or at least one large part of it, is subsequent to science; it begins where science leaves off. | |
From: Jerrold J. Katz (Realistic Rationalism [2000], Int.xxi) | |
A reaction: In some sense this has to be true. Without metaphysics there couldn't be any science. Rationalists should not forget, though, the huge impact which Darwin's science has (or should have) on fairly abstract philosophy (e.g. epistemology). |
2510 | Traditionally philosophy is an a priori enquiry into general truths about reality [Katz] |
Full Idea: The traditional conception of philosophy is that it is an a priori enquiry into the most general facts about reality. | |
From: Jerrold J. Katz (Realistic Rationalism [2000], Int.xi) | |
A reaction: I think this still defines philosophy, though it also highlights the weakness of the subject, which is over-confidence about asserting necessary truths. How could the most god-like areas of human thought be about anything else? |
14456 | 'Socrates is human' expresses predication, and 'Socrates is a man' expresses identity [Russell] |
Full Idea: The is of 'Socrates is human' expresses the relation of subject and predicate; the is of 'Socrates is a man' expresses identity. It is a disgrace to the human race that it employs the same word 'is' for these entirely different ideas. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XVI) | |
A reaction: Does the second one express identity? It sounds more like membership to me. 'Socrates is the guy with the hemlock' is more like identity. |
17621 | What matters in mathematics is its objectivity, not the existence of the objects [Dummett] |
Full Idea: As Kreisel has remarked, what is important is not the existence of mathematical objects, but the objectivity of mathematical statements. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973], Ch.14) | |
A reaction: [see Maddy 2011:115 for the history of this idea] It seems rather unclear where Frege stands on objectivity. Maddy embraces it, following up this idea, and Tyler Burge's fat book on objectivity. |
14426 | A definition by 'extension' enumerates items, and one by 'intension' gives a defining property [Russell] |
Full Idea: The definition of a class or collection which enumerates is called a definition by 'extension', and one which mentions a defining property is called a definition by 'intension'. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], II) | |
A reaction: In ordinary usage we take intensional definitions for granted, so it is interesting to realise that you might define 'tiger' by just enumerating all the tigers. But all past tigers? All future tigers? All possible tigers which never exist? |
8468 | The sentence 'procrastination drinks quadruplicity' is meaningless, rather than false [Russell, by Orenstein] |
Full Idea: Russell proposed (in his theory of types) that sentences like 'The number two is fond of cream cheese' or 'Procrastination drinks quadruplicity' should be regarded as not false but meaningless. | |
From: report of Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919]) by Alex Orenstein - W.V. Quine Ch.3 | |
A reaction: This seems to be the origin of the notion of a 'category mistake', which Ryle made famous. The problem is always poetry, where abstractions can be reified, or personified, and meaning can be squeezed out of almost anything. |
14454 | An argument 'satisfies' a function φx if φa is true [Russell] |
Full Idea: We say that an argument a 'satisfies' a function φx if φa is true. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XV) | |
A reaction: We end up with Tarski defining truth in terms of satisfaction, so we shouldn't get too excited about what he achieved (any more than he got excited). |
14453 | The Darapti syllogism is fallacious: All M is S, all M is P, so some S is P' - but if there is no M? [Russell] |
Full Idea: Some moods of the syllogism are fallacious, e.g. 'Darapti': 'All M is S, all M is P, therefore some S is P', which fails if there is no M. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XV) | |
A reaction: This critique rests on the fact that the existential quantifier entails some existence, but the universal quantifier does not. |
10537 | The ordered pairs <x,y> can be reduced to the class of sets of the form {{x},{x,y}} [Dummett] |
Full Idea: A classic reduction is the class of ordered pairs <x,y> being reduced to the class of sets of the form {{x},{x,y}}. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973], Ch.14) |
14427 | We can enumerate finite classes, but an intensional definition is needed for infinite classes [Russell] |
Full Idea: We know a great deal about a class without enumerating its members …so definition by extension is not necessary to knowledge about a class ..but enumeration of infinite classes is impossible for finite beings, so definition must be by intension. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], II) | |
A reaction: Presumably mathematical induction (which keeps apply the rule to extend the class) will count as an intension here. |
14428 | Members define a unique class, whereas defining characteristics are numerous [Russell] |
Full Idea: There is only one class having a given set of members, whereas there are always many different characteristics by which a given class may be defined. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], II) |
14440 | We may assume that there are infinite collections, as there is no logical reason against them [Russell] |
Full Idea: There is no logical reason against infinite collections, and we are therefore justified, in logic, in investigating the hypothesis that there are such collections. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], VIII) |
14447 | Infinity says 'for any inductive cardinal, there is a class having that many terms' [Russell] |
Full Idea: The Axiom of Infinity may be enunciated as 'If n be any inductive cardinal number, there is at least one class of individuals having n terms'. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XIII) | |
A reaction: So for every possible there exists a set of terms for it. Notice that they are 'terms', not 'objects'. We must decide whether we are allowed terms which don't refer to real objects. |
14443 | The British parliament has one representative selected from each constituency [Russell] |
Full Idea: We have a class of representatives, who make up our Parliament, one being selected out of each constituency. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XII) | |
A reaction: You can rely on Russell for the clearest illustrations of these abstract ideas. He calls the Axiom of Choice the 'Multiplicative' Axiom. |
14444 | Choice is equivalent to the proposition that every class is well-ordered [Russell] |
Full Idea: Zermelo has shown that [the Axiom of Choice] is equivalent to the proposition that every class is well-ordered, i.e. can be arranged in a series in which every sub-class has a first term (except, of course, the null class). | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XII) | |
A reaction: Russell calls Choice the 'Multiplicative' Axiom. |
14445 | Choice shows that if any two cardinals are not equal, one must be the greater [Russell] |
Full Idea: The [Axiom of Choice] is also equivalent to the assumption that of any two cardinals which are not equal, one must be the greater. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XII) | |
A reaction: It is illuminating for the uninitiated to learn that this result can't be taken for granted (with infinite cardinals). |
14446 | We can pick all the right or left boots, but socks need Choice to insure the representative class [Russell] |
Full Idea: Among boots we distinguish left and right, so we can choose all the right or left boots; with socks no such principle suggests itself, and we cannot be sure, without the [Axiom of Choice], that there is a class consisting of one sock from each pair. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XII) | |
A reaction: A deservedly famous illustration of a rather tricky part of set theory. |
10542 | To associate a cardinal with each set, we need the Axiom of Choice to find a representative [Dummett] |
Full Idea: We may suppose that with each set is associated an object as its cardinal number, but we have no systematic way, without appeal to the Axiom of Choice, of selecting a representative set of each cardinality. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973], Ch.14) |
14459 | Reducibility: a family of functions is equivalent to a single type of function [Russell] |
Full Idea: The Axiom of Reducibility says 'There is a type of a-functions such that, given any a-function, it is formally equivalent to some function of the type in question'. ..It involves all that is really essential in the theory of classes. But is it true? | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XVII) | |
A reaction: I take this to say that in the theory of types, it is possible to reduce each level of type down to one type. |
14461 | Propositions about classes can be reduced to propositions about their defining functions [Russell] |
Full Idea: It is right (in its main lines) to say that there is a reduction of propositions nominally about classes to propositions about their defining functions. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XVII) | |
A reaction: The defining functions will involve the theory of types, in order to avoid the paradoxes of naïve set theory. This is Russell's strategy for rejecting the existence of sets. |
8469 | Russell's proposal was that only meaningful predicates have sets as their extensions [Russell, by Orenstein] |
Full Idea: Russell's solution (in the theory of types) consists of restricting the principle that every predicate has a set as its extension so that only meaningful predicates have sets as their extensions. | |
From: report of Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919]) by Alex Orenstein - W.V. Quine Ch.3 | |
A reaction: There might be a chicken-and-egg problem here. How do you decide the members of a set (apart from ostensively) without deciding the predicate(s) that combine them? |
8745 | Classes are logical fictions, and are not part of the ultimate furniture of the world [Russell] |
Full Idea: The symbols for classes are mere conveniences, not representing objects called 'classes'. Classes are in fact logical fictions; they cannot be regarded as part of the ultimate furniture of the world. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], Ch.18), quoted by Stewart Shapiro - Thinking About Mathematics 5.2 | |
A reaction: I agree. For 'logical fictions' read 'abstractions'. To equate abstractions with fictions is to underline the fact that they are a human creation. They are either that or platonic objects - there is no middle way. |
14452 | All the propositions of logic are completely general [Russell] |
Full Idea: It is part of the definition of logic that all its propositions are completely general. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XV) |
14462 | In modern times, logic has become mathematical, and mathematics has become logical [Russell] |
Full Idea: Logic has become more mathematical, and mathematics has become more logical. The consequence is that it has now become wholly impossible to draw a line between the two; in fact, the two are one. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XVIII) | |
A reaction: This appears to be true even if you reject logicism about mathematics. Logicism is sometimes rejected because it always ends up with a sneaky ontological commitment, but maybe mathematics shares exactly the same commitment. |
12444 | Logic is concerned with the real world just as truly as zoology [Russell] |
Full Idea: Logic is concerned with the real world just as truly as zoology, though with its more abstract and general features. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XVI) | |
A reaction: I love this idea and am very sympathetic to it. The rival view seems to be that logic is purely conventional, perhaps defined by truth tables etc. It is hard to see how a connective like 'tonk' could be self-evidently silly if it wasn't 'unnatural'. |
10057 | Logic can only assert hypothetical existence [Russell] |
Full Idea: No proposition of logic can assert 'existence' except under a hypothesis. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XVIII) | |
A reaction: I am prepared to accept this view fairly dogmatically, though Musgrave shows some of the difficulties of the if-thenist view (depending on which 'order' of logic is being used). |
14464 | Logic can be known a priori, without study of the actual world [Russell] |
Full Idea: Logical propositions are such as can be known a priori, without study of the actual world. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XVIII) | |
A reaction: This remark constrasts strikingly with Idea 12444, which connects logic to the actual world. Is it therefore a priori synthetic? |
10450 | Russell admitted that even names could also be used as descriptions [Russell, by Bach] |
Full Idea: Russell clearly anticipated Donnellan when he said proper names can also be used as descriptions, adding that 'there is nothing in the phraseology to show whether they are being used in this way or as names'. | |
From: report of Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], p.175) by Kent Bach - What Does It Take to Refer? 22.2 L1 | |
A reaction: This seems also to anticipate Strawson's flexible and pragmatic approach to these things, which I am beginning to think is correct. |
14457 | Names are really descriptions, except for a few words like 'this' and 'that' [Russell] |
Full Idea: We can even say that, in all such knowledge as can be expressed in words, with the exception of 'this' and 'that' and a few other words of which the meaning varies on different occasions - no names occur, but what seem like names are really descriptions. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XVI) | |
A reaction: I like the caveat about what is expressed in words. Russell is very good at keeping non-verbal thought in the picture. This is his famous final reduction of names to simple demonstratives. |
14458 | Asking 'Did Homer exist?' is employing an abbreviated description [Russell] |
Full Idea: When we ask whether Homer existed, we are using the word 'Homer' as an abbreviated description. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XVI) | |
A reaction: It is hard to disagree with Russell over this rather unusual example. It doesn't seem so plausible when Ottiline refers to 'Bertie'. |
7311 | The only genuine proper names are 'this' and 'that' [Russell] |
Full Idea: In all knowledge that can be expressed in words - with the exception of "this" and "that", and a few other such words - no genuine proper names occur, but what seem like genuine proper names are really descriptions | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XVI) | |
A reaction: This is the terminus of Russell's train of thought about descriptions. Suppose you point to something non-existent, like a ghost in a misty churchyard? You'd be back to the original problem of naming a non-existent! |
14455 | 'I met a unicorn' is meaningful, and so is 'unicorn', but 'a unicorn' is not [Russell] |
Full Idea: In 'I met a unicorn' the four words together make a significant proposition, and the word 'unicorn' is significant, …but the two words 'a unicorn' do not form a group having a meaning of its own. It is an indefinite description describing nothing. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XVI) |
14442 | If straight lines were like ratios they might intersect at a 'gap', and have no point in common [Russell] |
Full Idea: We wish to say that when two straight lines cross each other they have a point in common, but if the series of points on a line were similar to the series of ratios, the two lines might cross in a 'gap' and have no point in common. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], X) | |
A reaction: You can make a Dedekind Cut in the line of ratios (the rationals), so there must be gaps. I love this idea. We take for granted intersection at a point, but physical lines may not coincide. That abstract lines might fail also is lovely! |
14438 | New numbers solve problems: negatives for subtraction, fractions for division, complex for equations [Russell] |
Full Idea: Every generalisation of number has presented itself as needed for some simple problem. Negative numbers are needed to make subtraction always possible; fractions to make division always possible; complex numbers to make solutions of equations possible. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], VII) | |
A reaction: Doesn't this rather suggest that we made them up? If new problems turn up, we'll invent another lot. We already have added 'surreal' numbers. |
13510 | Could a number just be something which occurs in a progression? [Russell, by Hart,WD] |
Full Idea: Russell toyed with the idea that there is nothing to being a natural number beyond occurring in a progression | |
From: report of Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], p.8) by William D. Hart - The Evolution of Logic 5 | |
A reaction: How could you define a progression, without a prior access to numbers? - Arrange all the objects in the universe in ascending order of mass. Use scales to make the selection. Hence a finite progression, with no numbers! |
14436 | A series can be 'Cut' in two, where the lower class has no maximum, the upper no minimum [Russell] |
Full Idea: There is no maximum to the ratios whose square is less than 2, and no minimum to those whose square is greater than 2. This division of a series into two classes is called a 'Dedekind Cut'. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], VII) |
14439 | A complex number is simply an ordered couple of real numbers [Russell] |
Full Idea: A complex number may be regarded and defined as simply an ordered couple of real numbers | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], VII) |
14421 | Discovering that 1 is a number was difficult [Russell] |
Full Idea: The discovery that 1 is a number must have been difficult. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], I) | |
A reaction: Interesting that he calls it a 'discovery'. I am tempted to call it a 'decision'. |
14424 | Numbers are needed for counting, so they need a meaning, and not just formal properties [Russell] |
Full Idea: We want our numbers to be such as can be used for counting common objects, and this requires that our numbers should have a definite meaning, not merely that they should have certain formal properties. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], I) | |
A reaction: Why would just having certain formal properties be insufficient for counting? You just need an ordered series of unique items. It isn't just that we 'want' this. If you define something that we can't count with, you haven't defined numbers. |
14441 | The formal laws of arithmetic are the Commutative, the Associative and the Distributive [Russell] |
Full Idea: The usual formal laws of arithmetic are the Commutative Law [a+b=b+a and axb=bxa], the Associative Law [(a+b)+c=a+(b+c) and (axb)xc=ax(bxc)], and the Distributive Law [a(b+c)=ab+ac)]. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], IX) |
14420 | Infinity and continuity used to be philosophy, but are now mathematics [Russell] |
Full Idea: The nature of infinity and continuity belonged in former days to philosophy, but belongs now to mathematics. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], Pref) | |
A reaction: It is hard to disagree, since mathematicians since Cantor have revealed so much about infinite numbers (through set theory), but I think it remains an open question whether philosophers have anything distinctive to contribute. |
14431 | The definition of order needs a transitive relation, to leap over infinite intermediate terms [Russell] |
Full Idea: Order must be defined by means of a transitive relation, since only such a relation is able to leap over an infinite number of intermediate terms. ...Without it we would not be able to define the order of magnitude among fractions. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], IV) |
14423 | '0', 'number' and 'successor' cannot be defined by Peano's axioms [Russell] |
Full Idea: That '0', 'number' and 'successor' cannot be defined by means of Peano's five axioms, but must be independently understood. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], I) |
14422 | Any founded, non-repeating series all reachable in steps will satisfy Peano's axioms [Russell] |
Full Idea: Given any series which is endless, contains no repetitions, has a beginning, and has no terms that cannot be reached from the beginning in a finite number of steps, we have a set of terms verifying Peano's axioms. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], I) |
10554 | Intuitionists find the Incompleteness Theorem unsurprising, since proof is intuitive, not formal [Dummett] |
Full Idea: In the intuitionist view, the notion of an intuitive proof cannot be expected to coincide with that of a proof in a formal system, and Gödel's incompleteness theorem is thus unsurprising from an intuitionist point of view. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973], Ch.14) |
14425 | A number is something which characterises collections of the same size [Russell] |
Full Idea: The number 3 is something which all trios have in common, and which distinguishes them from other collections. A number is something that characterises certain collections, namely, those that have that number. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], II) | |
A reaction: This is a verbal summary of the Fregean view of numbers, which marks the arrival of set theory as the way arithmetic will in future be characterised. The question is whether set theory captures all aspects of numbers. Does it give a tool for counting? |
14434 | What matters is the logical interrelation of mathematical terms, not their intrinsic nature [Russell] |
Full Idea: What matters in mathematics is not the intrinsic nature of our terms, but the logical nature of their interrelations. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], VI) | |
A reaction: If they have an instrinsic nature, that would matter far more, because that would dictate the interrelations. Structuralism seems to require that they don't actually have any intrinsic nature. |
2521 | 'Real' maths objects have no causal role, no determinate reference, and no abstract/concrete distinction [Katz] |
Full Idea: Three objections to realism in philosophy of mathematics: mathematical objects have no space/time location, and so no causal role; that such objects are determinate, but reference to numbers aren't; and that there is no abstract/concrete distinction. | |
From: Jerrold J. Katz (Realistic Rationalism [2000], Int.xxix) |
14465 | Maybe numbers are adjectives, since 'ten men' grammatically resembles 'white men' [Russell] |
Full Idea: 'Ten men' is grammatically the same form as 'white men', so that 10 might be thought to be an adjective qualifying 'men'. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XVIII) | |
A reaction: The immediate problem, as Frege spotted, is that such expressions can be rephrased to remove the adjective (by saying 'the number of men is ten'). |
13414 | For Russell, numbers are sets of equivalent sets [Russell, by Benacerraf] |
Full Idea: Russell's own stand was that numbers are really only sets of equivalent sets. | |
From: report of Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919]) by Paul Benacerraf - Logicism, Some Considerations (PhD) p.168 | |
A reaction: Benacerraf is launching a nice attack on this view, based on our inability to grasp huge numbers on this basis, or to see their natural order. |
10552 | Intuitionism says that totality of numbers is only potential, but is still determinate [Dummett] |
Full Idea: From the intuitionist point of view natural numbers are mental constructions, so their totality is only potential, but it is neverthless a fully determinate totality. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973], Ch.14) | |
A reaction: This could only be if the means of constructing the numbers was fully determinate, so how does that situation come about? |
14449 | There is always something psychological about inference [Russell] |
Full Idea: There is always unavoidably something psychological about inference. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XIV) | |
A reaction: Glad to find Russell saying that. Only pure Fregeans dream of a logic that rises totally above the minds that think it. See Robert Hanna on the subject. |
14463 | Existence can only be asserted of something described, not of something named [Russell] |
Full Idea: Existence can only be asserted of something described, not of something named. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XVIII) | |
A reaction: This is the motivation behind Russell's theory of definite descriptions, and epitomises the approach to ontology through language. Sounds wrong to me! |
10540 | We can't say that light is concrete but radio waves abstract [Dummett] |
Full Idea: If abstractions were defined by whether they could affect human sense-organs, light-waves would be concrete but radio waves abstract. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973], Ch.14) | |
A reaction: This is a pretty good baseline example. No account should draw an abstract/concrete line through the electromagnetic spectrum. |
10515 | Ostension is possible for concreta; abstracta can only be referred to via other objects [Dummett, by Hale] |
Full Idea: Dummett distinguishes, roughly, between those concrete objects which can be possible objects of ostension, and abstract objects which can only be referred to by functional expressions whose argument is some other object. | |
From: report of Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973], Ch.14) by Bob Hale - Abstract Objects Ch.3.II | |
A reaction: At least someone has proposed a theory! Hale gives a nice critical discussion of the proposal. It is a moot point whether in the second case, when you pick out the 'other object', you are thereby able to refer to some new abstract object. |
10544 | The concrete/abstract distinction seems crude: in which category is the Mistral? [Dummett] |
Full Idea: The dichotomy between concrete and abstract objects comes to seem far too crude: to which of the two categories should we assign the Mistral, for instance? | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973], Ch.14) | |
A reaction: He has previously given colours and points as difficult borderline cases. We can generalise this particular problem case as the question of whether a potentiality or possibility is abstract or concrete. |
10546 | We don't need a sharp concrete/abstract distinction [Dummett] |
Full Idea: There is no reason for wanting a sharp distinction between concrete and abstract objects. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973], Ch.14) | |
A reaction: This rather depends on your ontology. If you are happy for reality to be full of weird non-physical entities, then the blurring won't bother you. If the boundary is blurred but still real, it is a very interesting one. |
14429 | Classes are logical fictions, made from defining characteristics [Russell] |
Full Idea: Classes may be regarded as logical fictions, manufactured out of defining characteristics. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], II n1) | |
A reaction: I agree with this. The idea that in addition to the members there is a further object, the set containing them, is absurd. Sets are a tool for thinking about the world. |
10548 | The context principle for names rules out a special philosophical sense for 'existence' [Dummett] |
Full Idea: The dictum that a name has meaning only in the context of a sentence repudiates the conception of a special philosophical sense of 'existence', which claims that numbers do not exist while affirming existential statements about them. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973], Ch.14) | |
A reaction: He refers to Frege's Context Principle. Personally I would say you could make plenty of 'affirmations' about arithmetic without them having to be 'existential'. I can say there 'is' a number between 6 and 8, without huge existential claims. |
10281 | The objects we recognise the world as containing depends on the structure of our language [Dummett] |
Full Idea: What objects we recognise the world as containing depends upon the structure of our language. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973], Ch.14) | |
A reaction: The background to this claim is the Fregean idea that there are no objects for us if there are no concepts. Dummett is adding that there are no concepts if there is no language. I say animals have concepts and recognise objects. |
14430 | If a relation is symmetrical and transitive, it has to be reflexive [Russell] |
Full Idea: It is obvious that a relation which is symmetrical and transitive must be reflexive throughout its domain. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], II) | |
A reaction: Compare Idea 13543! The relation will return to its originator via its neighbours, rather than being directly reflexive? |
14432 | 'Asymmetry' is incompatible with its converse; a is husband of b, so b can't be husband of a [Russell] |
Full Idea: The relation of 'asymmetry' is incompatible with the converse. …The relation 'husband' is asymmetrical, so that if a is the husband of b, b cannot be the husband of a. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], V) | |
A reaction: This is to be contrasted with 'non-symmetrical', where there just happens to be no symmetry. |
10532 | We can understand universals by studying predication [Dummett] |
Full Idea: It is by the study of the character of predication that we shall come to understand the essential nature of universals. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973], Ch.14) | |
A reaction: I haven't founded a clearer manifesto for linguistic philosophy than that! Personally I find it highly dubious, given the shifting nature of linguistic forms, and the enormous variation between remote languages. |
10534 | 'Nominalism' used to mean denial of universals, but now means denial of abstract objects [Dummett] |
Full Idea: The original sense of 'nominalism' is the denial of universals, that is the denial of reference to either predicates or to abstract nouns. The modern sense (of Nelson Goodman) is the denial of the existence of abstract objects. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973], Ch.14) | |
A reaction: This is why you find loads of modern philosophers vigorous attacking nominalism, only to gradually realise that they don't actually believe in universals, as traditionally understood. It's hard to keep up, when words shift their meaning. |
10541 | Concrete objects such as sounds and smells may not be possible objects of ostension [Dummett] |
Full Idea: We cannot simply distinguish concrete objects as objects of ostension, if it literally involves a pointing gesture, as this would exclude a colourless gas, a sound or a smell. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973], Ch.14) | |
A reaction: He shifts to verbal ostension as a result, since we can talk of 'this smell'. On p.491 he suggests that affecting our senses is a sufficient condition to be concrete, but not a necessary one. |
10545 | Abstract objects may not cause changes, but they can be the subject of change [Dummett] |
Full Idea: To say that an abstract object cannot be the cause of change seems plausible enough, but the thesis that it cannot be the subject of change is problematic. The shape of an object can change, or the number of sheep on a hill. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973], Ch.14) | |
A reaction: This seems a pretty crucial difficulty for the standard notion of abstracta as non-causal. I would say that it is an acid which could eat away the whole edifice if you thought about it for long enough. He shifts shape-change to the physical object. |
10555 | If we can intuitively apprehend abstract objects, this makes them observable and causally active [Dummett] |
Full Idea: For intuitionists, it ceases to be true that abstract objects are not observable and cannot be involved in causal interaction, since such intuitive apprehension of them may be regarded as just such an interaction. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973], Ch.14) | |
A reaction: I would say that since abstract objects can be involved in causal interactions, in the mind, and since the mind is entirely physical (oh yes), this makes abstract objects entirely physical, which may come as a shock to some people. |
10543 | Abstract objects must have names that fall within the range of some functional expression [Dummett] |
Full Idea: For an object to be abstract, we require only that an understanding of any name of that object involves a recognition that the object is in the range of some functional expression. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973], Ch.14) | |
A reaction: I'm not sure I understand this, but a function must involve a relation between some objects, such that a unique object is consequently picked out. |
10320 | If a genuine singular term needs a criterion of identity, we must exclude abstract nouns [Dummett, by Hale] |
Full Idea: Dummett's best argument for excluding abstract nouns relies upon the entirely Fregean requirement that with any genuine singular term there must be associated a criterion of identity. | |
From: report of Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973]) by Bob Hale - Abstract Objects Ch.2.II | |
A reaction: This sounds a rather rigid test. Must the criteria be logically precise, or must you just have some vague idea of what you are talking about? |
10547 | Abstract objects can never be confronted, and need verbal phrases for reference [Dummett] |
Full Idea: An abstract object can be referred to only by means of a verbal phrase, ...and no confrontation with an abstract object is possible. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973], Ch.14) | |
A reaction: So does this mean that animals are incapable of entertaining abstract concepts? Some research suggests otherwise. Does a dog understand what a 'walk' is, without use of the word? Dummett disgracefully neglects animals in his theories. |
10531 | There is a modern philosophical notion of 'object', first introduced by Frege [Dummett] |
Full Idea: The notion of 'object', as it is now commonly used in philosophical contexts, is a modern notion, one first introduced by Frege. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973], Ch.14) | |
A reaction: If we say 'objects exist', I think it is crucial that if we are going to introduce 'object' as a term of art, then 'exist' had better stick to normal usage. If that drifts into a term of art as well (incorporating 'subsist', or some such) we have no hope! |
14435 | The essence of individuality is beyond description, and hence irrelevant to science [Russell] |
Full Idea: The essence of individuality always eludes words and baffles description, and is for that very reason irrelevant to science. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], VI) | |
A reaction: [context needed for a full grasp of this idea] Russell seems to refer to essence as much as to individuality. The modern essentialist view is that essences are not beyond description after all. Fundamental physics is clearer now than in 1919. |
12197 | Inferring q from p only needs p to be true, and 'not-p or q' to be true [Russell] |
Full Idea: In order that it be valid to infer q from p, it is only necessary that p should be true and that the proposition 'not-p or q' should be true. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XIV) | |
A reaction: Rumfitt points out that this approach to logical consequences is a denial of any modal aspect, such as 'logical necessity'. Russell observes that for a good inference you must know the disjunction as a whole. Could disjunction be modal?... |
14450 | All forms of implication are expressible as truth-functions [Russell] |
Full Idea: There is no need to admit as a fundamental notion any form of implication not expressible as a truth-function. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XIV) | |
A reaction: Note that this is from a book about 'mathematical' philosophy. Nevertheless, it seems to have the form of a universal credo for Russell. He wasn't talking about conditionals here. Maybe conditionals are not implications (in isolation, that is). |
14460 | If something is true in all possible worlds then it is logically necessary [Russell] |
Full Idea: Saying that the axiom of reducibility is logically necessary is what would be meant by saying that it is true in all possible worlds. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XVII) | |
A reaction: This striking remark is a nice bridge between Leibniz (about whom Russell wrote a book) and Kripke. |
2513 | We don't have a clear enough sense of meaning to pronounce some sentences meaningless or just analytic [Katz] |
Full Idea: Linguistic meaning is not rich enough to show either that all metaphysical sentences are meaningless or that all alleged synthetic a priori propositions are just analytic a priori propositions. | |
From: Jerrold J. Katz (Realistic Rationalism [2000], Int.xx) |
2522 | Experience cannot teach us why maths and logic are necessary [Katz] |
Full Idea: The Leibniz-Kant criticism of empiricism is that experience cannot teach us why mathematical and logical facts couldn't be otherwise than they are. | |
From: Jerrold J. Katz (Realistic Rationalism [2000], Int.xxxi) |
14433 | Mathematically expressed propositions are true of the world, but how to interpret them? [Russell] |
Full Idea: We know that certain scientific propositions - often expressed in mathematical symbols - are more or less true of the world, but we are very much at sea as to the interpretation to be put upon the terms which occur in these propositions. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], VI) | |
A reaction: Enter essentialism, say I! Russell's remark is pretty understandable in 1919, but I don't think the situation has changed much. The problem of interpretation may be of more interest to philosophers than to physicists. |
19168 | Concepts only have a 'functional character', because they map to truth values, not objects [Dummett, by Davidson] |
Full Idea: Real functions map objects onto objects, but concepts map objects onto truth value, ...so Dummett says that concepts are not functions, but that they have a 'functional character'. | |
From: report of Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973]) by Donald Davidson - Truth and Predication 6 |
10549 | Since abstract objects cannot be picked out, we must rely on identity statements [Dummett] |
Full Idea: Since we cannot pick an abstract object out from its surrounding, all that we need to master is the use of statements of identity between objects of a certain kind. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973], Ch.14) | |
A reaction: This is the necessary Fregean preliminary to using a principle of abstraction to identify two objects which are abstract (when the two objects are in an equivalence relation). Presumably circular squares and square circles are identical? |
2517 | Structuralists see meaning behaviouristically, and Chomsky says nothing about it [Katz] |
Full Idea: In linguistics there are two schools of thought: Bloomfieldian structuralism (favoured by Quine) conceives of sentences acoustically and meanings behaviouristically; and Chomskian generative grammar (which is silent about semantics). | |
From: Jerrold J. Katz (Realistic Rationalism [2000], Int.xxiv) | |
A reaction: They both appear to be wrong, so there is (or was) something rotten in the state of linguistics. Are the only options for meaning either behaviourist or eliminativist? |
10516 | A realistic view of reference is possible for concrete objects, but not for abstract objects [Dummett, by Hale] |
Full Idea: Dummett claims that a realistic conception of reference can be sustained for concrete objects (possible objects of ostension), but breaks down for (putative) names of (pure) abstract objects. | |
From: report of Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973], Ch.14) by Bob Hale - Abstract Objects Ch.3.II | |
A reaction: An extremely hard claim to evaluate, because a case must first be made for abstract objects which are fundamentally different in kind. Realistic reference must certainly deal with these hard cases. Field rejects Dummett's abstract points. |
2519 | It is generally accepted that sense is defined as the determiner of reference [Katz] |
Full Idea: There is virtually universal acceptance of Frege's definition of sense as the determiner of reference. | |
From: Jerrold J. Katz (Realistic Rationalism [2000], Int.xxvi) | |
A reaction: Not any more, since Kripke and Putnam. It is one thing to say sense determines reference, and quite another to say that this is the definition of sense. |
2520 | Sense determines meaning and synonymy, not referential properties like denotation and truth [Katz] |
Full Idea: Pace Frege, sense determines sense properties and relations, like meaningfulness and synonymy, rather than determining referential properties, like denotation and truth. | |
From: Jerrold J. Katz (Realistic Rationalism [2000], Int.xxvi) | |
A reaction: This leaves room for Fregean 'sense', after Kripke has demolished the idea that sense determines reference. |
14451 | Propositions are mainly verbal expressions of true or false, and perhaps also symbolic thoughts [Russell] |
Full Idea: We mean by 'proposition' primarily a form of words which expresses what is either true or false. I say 'primarily' because I do not wish to exclude other than verbal symbols, or even mere thoughts if they have a symbolic character. | |
From: Bertrand Russell (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy [1919], XV) | |
A reaction: I like the last bit, as I think of propositions as pre-verbal thoughts, and I am sympathetic to Fodor's 'language of thought' thesis, that there is a system of representations within the brain. |
2518 | Sentences are abstract types (like musical scores), not individual tokens [Katz] |
Full Idea: Sentences are types, not utterance tokens or mental/neural tokens, and hence sentences are abstract objects (like musical scores). | |
From: Jerrold J. Katz (Realistic Rationalism [2000], Int.xxvi) | |
A reaction: If sentences are abstract types, then two verbally indistinguishable sentences are the same sentence. But if I say 'I am happy', that isn't the same as you saying it. |