12 ideas
| 15938 | Platonists ruin infinity, which is precisely a growing structure which is never completed [Dummett] |
| Full Idea: The platonist destroys the whole essence of infinity, which lies in the conception of a structure which is always in growth, precisely because the process of construction is never completed. | |
| From: Michael Dummett (Elements of Intuitionism [1977], p.57), quoted by Thomas J. McKay - Plural Predication | |
| A reaction: I don't warm to intuitionism, but I warm to this conception of infinity. Completed infinities are convenient reifications for mathematicians. |
| 15939 | For intuitionists it is constructed proofs (which take time) which make statements true [Dummett] |
| Full Idea: For an intuitionist a mathematical statement is rendered true or false by a proof or disproof, that is, by a construction, and constructions are effected in time. | |
| From: Michael Dummett (Elements of Intuitionism [1977], p.336), quoted by Shaughan Lavine - Understanding the Infinite VI.2 | |
| A reaction: Lavine is quoting this to draw attention to the difficulties of thinking of it as all taking place 'in time', especially when dealing with infinities. |
| 12312 | The real essence of a thing is its powers, or 'dispositional properties' [Copi] |
| Full Idea: With respect to scientific usage, we can say that the real essence of a thing will consist very largely of powers or, in modern terms, dispositional properties. | |
| From: Irving M. Copi (Essence and Accident [1954], p.718) | |
| A reaction: Once again, Copi is a hero. I personally love the word 'powers' in metaphysics (and dislike the word 'properties', which is lost in a fog of confusion). See Molnar on 'powers' and Mumford on 'dispositions'. |
| 10937 | Essential properties are the 'deepest' ones which explain the others [Copi, by Rami] |
| Full Idea: The 'explanatory characterization' says that the essential properties of an object are the object's deepest explanatory properties, which explain the other properties of the object - and which Copi claims is mind-independent. | |
| From: report of Irving M. Copi (Essence and Accident [1954]) by Adolph Rami - Essential vs Accidental Properties §2 | |
| A reaction: It is, of course, normal to see a good explanation as being dependent on the interests of the audience. Perhaps this account should be in terms of causal powers. See Shoemaker on properties. |
| 12308 | In modern science, nominal essence is intended to be real essence [Copi] |
| Full Idea: In the sphere of scientific enquiry the distinction between real and nominal essence tends to disappear; the scientist's classification of things is intended to be in terms of their real essences. | |
| From: Irving M. Copi (Essence and Accident [1954], p.716) | |
| A reaction: Thus we have disputes over what is the 'real' classification of natural kinds such as animals. There is not much point in a classification system that does not at least reflect some aspects of reality. |
| 12303 | Within the four types of change, essential attributes are those whose loss means destruction [Copi] |
| Full Idea: If we can distinguish the different kinds of change (alteration, locomotion, growth, diminution), then we can say that a given attribute is essential to an object if its loss would result in the destruction of that object. | |
| From: Irving M. Copi (Essence and Accident [1954], p.707-8) | |
| A reaction: As Copi is aware, this is a necessary condition for a property for essence, but not sufficient. If an attribute were necessary but non-essential, its loss would also be destruction. We say the essential attributes must also have some explanatory role. |
| 19553 | Commitment to 'I have a hand' only makes sense in a context where it has been doubted [Hawthorne] |
| Full Idea: If I utter 'I know I have a hand' then I can only be reckoned a cooperative conversant by my interlocutors on the assumption that there was a real question as to whether I have a hand. | |
| From: John Hawthorne (The Case for Closure [2005], 2) | |
| A reaction: This seems to point to the contextualist approach to global scepticism, which concerns whether we are setting the bar high or low for 'knowledge'. |
| 19551 | How can we know the heavyweight implications of normal knowledge? Must we distort 'knowledge'? [Hawthorne] |
| Full Idea: Those who deny skepticism but accept closure will have to explain how we know the various 'heavyweight' skeptical hypotheses to be false. Do we then twist the concept of knowledge to fit the twin desiderata of closue and anti-skepticism? | |
| From: John Hawthorne (The Case for Closure [2005], Intro) | |
| A reaction: [He is giving Dretske's view; Dretske says we do twist knowledge] Thus if I remember yesterday, that has the heavyweight implication that the past is real. Hawthorne nicely summarises why closure produces a philosophical problem. |
| 19552 | We wouldn't know the logical implications of our knowledge if small risks added up to big risks [Hawthorne] |
| Full Idea: Maybe one cannot know the logical consequences of the proposition that one knows, on account of the fact that small risks add up to big risks. | |
| From: John Hawthorne (The Case for Closure [2005], 1) | |
| A reaction: The idea of closure is that the new knowledge has the certainty of logic, and each step is accepted. An array of receding propositions can lose reliability, but that shouldn't apply to logic implications. Assuming monotonic logic, of course. |
| 19554 | Denying closure is denying we know P when we know P and Q, which is absurd in simple cases [Hawthorne] |
| Full Idea: How could we know that P and Q but not be in a position to know that P (as deniers of closure must say)? If my glass is full of wine, we know 'g is full of wine, and not full of non-wine'. How can we deny that we know it is not full of non-wine? | |
| From: John Hawthorne (The Case for Closure [2005], 2) | |
| A reaction: Hawthorne merely raises this doubt. Dretske is concerned with heavyweight implications, but how do you accept lightweight implications like this one, and then suddenly reject them when they become too heavy? [see p.49] |
| 12307 | Modern science seeks essences, and is getting closer to them [Copi] |
| Full Idea: Modern science seeks to know the real essences of things, and its increasing successes seem to be bringing it progressively nearer to that goal. | |
| From: Irving M. Copi (Essence and Accident [1954], p.715) | |
| A reaction: This is from a notable pioneering paper, which outlined scientific essentialism even before Marcus and Kripke began to offer a modern account of essence to give it backing. Compare Popper, who thinks essences are will-o-the-wisps. |
| 12310 | Real essences are scientifically knowable, but so are non-essential properties [Copi] |
| Full Idea: Contrary to Locke, I should hold that real essences are in principle knowable, and contrary to Aristotle, I should hold that non-essential or accidental properties can also be objects of scientific knowledge. | |
| From: Irving M. Copi (Essence and Accident [1954], p.717) | |
| A reaction: Copi has just become my hero. Aristotle's account of definition is on the brink of allowing fine-tuned essences, but he thinks universal understanding blocks knowledge of individuals. But cross-referencing of universals pinpoints individuals. |