4901
|
Truth has to be correspondence to facts, and a match between relations of ideas and relations in the world [Perry]
|
|
Full Idea:
I think knowledge and truth are a matter of correspondence to facts, despite all the energy spent showing the naïveté of this view. The connections of our ideas in our heads correspond to relations in the outside world.
|
|
From:
John Perry (Knowledge, Possibility and Consciousness [2001], §8.1)
|
|
A reaction:
Yes. Modern books offer the difficulties of defining 'correspondence', and finding an independent account of 'facts', as conclusive objections, but I say a brain is a truth machine, and it had better be useful. Indefinability doesn't nullify concepts.
|
14221
|
Serious essentialism says everything has essences, they're not things, and they ground necessities [Shalkowski]
|
|
Full Idea:
Serious essentialism is the position that a) everything has an essence, b) essences are not themselves things, and c) essences are the ground for metaphysical necessity and possibility.
|
|
From:
Scott Shalkowski (Essence and Being [2008], 'Intro')
|
|
A reaction:
If a house is being built, it might acquire an identity first, and only get an essence later. Essences can be physical, but if you extract them you destroy thing thing of which they were the essence. Does all of this apply to abstract 'things'.
|
14222
|
Essences are what it is to be that (kind of) thing - in fact, they are the thing's identity [Shalkowski]
|
|
Full Idea:
The route into essentialism is, first, a recognition that the essence of a thing is "what it is to be" that (kind of) thing; the essence of a thing is just its identity.
|
|
From:
Scott Shalkowski (Essence and Being [2008], 'Essent')
|
|
A reaction:
The first half sounds right, and very Aristotelian. The second half is dramatically different, controversial, and far less plausible. Slipping in 'kind of' is also highly dubious. This remark shows, I think, some confusion about essences.
|
4885
|
Identity is a very weak relation, which doesn't require interdefinability, or shared properties [Perry]
|
|
Full Idea:
The truth of "a=b" doesn't require much of 'a' and 'b' other than that there is a single thing to which they both refer. They needn't be interdefinable, or have supervenient properties. In this sense, identity is a very weak relation.
|
|
From:
John Perry (Knowledge, Possibility and Consciousness [2001], §1.2)
|
|
A reaction:
Interesting. This is seeing the epistemological aspects of identity. Ontologically, identity must invoke Leibniz's Law, and is the ultimately powerful 'relation'. A given student, and the cause of a crop circle, may APPEAR to be quite different.
|
4899
|
Possible worlds thinking has clarified the logic of modality, but is problematic in epistemology [Perry]
|
|
Full Idea:
Using possible worlds to model truth-conditions of statements has led to considerable clarity about the logic of modality. Attempts to use the system for epistemic purposes, however, have been plagued by problems.
|
|
From:
John Perry (Knowledge, Possibility and Consciousness [2001], §8.1)
|
|
A reaction:
Presumably what lurks behind this is a distinction between what is logically or naturally possible, and what appears to be possible from the perspective of a conscious mind. Is there a possible world in which I can fly?
|
4898
|
Possible worlds are indices for a language, or concrete realities, or abstract possibilities [Perry]
|
|
Full Idea:
Possible worlds can be thought of as indices for models of the language in question, or as concrete realities (David Lewis), or as abstract ways the world might be (Robert Stalnaker), or in various other ways.
|
|
From:
John Perry (Knowledge, Possibility and Consciousness [2001], §8.1)
|
|
A reaction:
I strongly favour the Stalnaker route here. Reducing great metaphysics to mere language I find abhorrent, and I suspect that Lewis was trapped by his commitment to strong empiricism. We must embrace abstractions into our ontology.
|
4891
|
If epiphenomenalism just says mental events are effects but not causes, it is consistent with physicalism [Perry]
|
|
Full Idea:
Epiphenomenalism is usually considered to be a form of dualism, but if we define it as the doctrine that conscious events are effects but not causes, it appears to be consistent with physicalism.
|
|
From:
John Perry (Knowledge, Possibility and Consciousness [2001], §4.2)
|
|
A reaction:
Interesting. The theory was invented to put mind outside physics, and make the closure of physics possible. However, being capable of causing things seems to be a necessary condition for physical objects. An effect in one domain is a cause in another.
|
4889
|
Although we may classify ideas by content, we individuate them differently, as their content can change [Perry]
|
|
Full Idea:
Although we classify ideas by content for many purposes, we do not individuate them by content. The content of an idea can change.
|
|
From:
John Perry (Knowledge, Possibility and Consciousness [2001], §3.2)
|
|
A reaction:
As the compiler of this database, I find this very appealing. The mind works exactly like a database. I have a 'file' (Perry's word) marked "London", the content of which undergoes continual change. I am a database management system.
|
4896
|
The intension of an expression is a function from possible worlds to an appropriate extension [Perry]
|
|
Full Idea:
In possible-worlds semantics, expressions have intensions, which are functions from possible worlds to appropriate extensions (names to individuals, n-place predicates to n-tuples, and sentences to truth values, built from parts).
|
|
From:
John Perry (Knowledge, Possibility and Consciousness [2001], §8.1)
|
|
A reaction:
Interesting. Perry distinguishes 'referential' (or 'subject matter') content, which is prior to the link to extensions - a link which creates 'reflexive' content. He is keen that they should not become confused. True knowledge is 'situated'.
|
14224
|
Equilateral and equiangular aren't the same, as we have to prove their connection [Shalkowski]
|
|
Full Idea:
That 'all and only equilateral triangles are equiangular' required proof, and not for mere curiosity, is grounds for thinking that being an equilateral triangle is not the same property as being an equiangular triangle.
|
|
From:
Scott Shalkowski (Essence and Being [2008], 'Serious')
|
|
A reaction:
If you start with equiangularity, does equilateralness then require proof? This famous example is of two concepts which seem to be coextensional, but seem to have a different intension. Does a dependence relation drive a wedge between them?
|