Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Three-Dimensionalism v Four-Dimensionalism', 'On the Syllogism IV' and 'Contributions of Philosophy (On Appropriation)'

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


7 ideas

1. Philosophy / D. Nature of Philosophy / 5. Aims of Philosophy / b. Philosophy as transcendent
When philosophy makes itself intelligible, it commits suicide [Heidegger]
     Full Idea: When philosophy makes itself intelligible, it commits suicide.
     From: Martin Heidegger (Contributions of Philosophy (On Appropriation) [1938], §259), quoted by Richard Polt - Heidegger: an introduction 5 'Contributions'
     A reaction: Polt describes this remark as 'theatrical', but it seems to speak for itself!
5. Theory of Logic / E. Structures of Logic / 6. Relations in Logic
De Morgan started the study of relations and their properties [De Morgan, by Walicki]
     Full Idea: De Morgan started the sustained interest in the study of relations and their properties.
     From: report of Augustus De Morgan (On the Syllogism IV [1859]) by Michal Walicki - Introduction to Mathematical Logic History D.1.1
De Morgan found inferences involving relations, which eluded Aristotle's syllogistic [De Morgan, by Hart,WD]
     Full Idea: There was a prejudice against relations (in favour of properties) but De Morgan and others that impeccable inferences turn on relations and elude Aristotle's syllogistic. Thus: All horses are animals. Hence, all heads of horses are heads of animals.
     From: report of Augustus De Morgan (On the Syllogism IV [1859]) by William D. Hart - The Evolution of Logic 4
     A reaction: This is actually an early example of modern analytic philosophy in action. You start with the inferences, and then work back to the ontology and the definition of concepts. But in pinning down such concepts, do we miss their full meaning?
9. Objects / B. Unity of Objects / 3. Unity Problems / a. Scattered objects
If we accept scattered objects such as archipelagos, why not think of cars that way? [Hawthorne]
     Full Idea: In being willing to countenance archipelagos, one embraces scattered objects. Why not then embrace the 'archipelago' of my car and the Eiffel Tower?
     From: John Hawthorne (Three-Dimensionalism v Four-Dimensionalism [2008], 2.1)
     A reaction: This is a beautifully simple and striking point. Language is full of embracing terms like 'the furniture', but that doesn't mean we assume the furniture is unified. The archipelago is less of an 'object' if you live on one of the islands.
9. Objects / E. Objects over Time / 4. Four-Dimensionalism
Four-dimensionalists say instantaneous objects are more fundamental than long-lived ones [Hawthorne]
     Full Idea: Self-proclaimed four-dimensionalists typically adopt a picture that reckons instantaneous objects (and facts about them) to be more fundamental than long-lived ones.
     From: John Hawthorne (Three-Dimensionalism v Four-Dimensionalism [2008], 2.2)
     A reaction: A nice elucidation. As in Idea 14588, this seems motivated by a desire for some sort of foundationalism or atomism. Why shouldn't a metaphysic treat the middle-sized or temporally extended as foundational, and derive the rest that way?
10. Modality / A. Necessity / 11. Denial of Necessity
A modal can reverse meaning if the context is seen differently, so maybe context is all? [Hawthorne]
     Full Idea: One person says 'He can't dig a hole; he hasn't got a spade', and another says 'He can dig a hole; just give him a spade', and both uses of the modal 'can' will be true. So some philosophers say that all modal predications are thus context-dependent.
     From: John Hawthorne (Three-Dimensionalism v Four-Dimensionalism [2008], 1.2)
     A reaction: Quine is the guru for this view of modality. Hawthorne's example seems to me to rely too much on the linguistic feature of contrasting 'can' and 'can't'. The underlying assertion in the propositions says something real about the possibilities.
27. Natural Reality / C. Space / 6. Space-Time
Modern metaphysicians tend to think space-time points are more fundamental than space-time regions [Hawthorne]
     Full Idea: Nowadays it is common for metaphysicians to hold both that space-time regions are less fundamental than the space-time points that compose them, and that facts about the regions are less fundamental than facts about the points and their arrangements.
     From: John Hawthorne (Three-Dimensionalism v Four-Dimensionalism [2008], 1)
     A reaction: I'm not quite sure what a physicist would make of this. It seems to be motivated by some a priori preference for atomism, and for system-building from minimal foundations.