28 ideas
| 13734 | Modern Quinean metaphysics is about what exists, but Aristotelian metaphysics asks about grounding [Schaffer,J] |
| Full Idea: On the now dominant Quinean view, metaphysics is about what there is (such as properties, meanings and numbers). I will argue for the revival of a more traditional Aristotelian view, on which metaphysics is about what grounds what. | |
| From: Jonathan Schaffer (On What Grounds What [2009], Intro) | |
| A reaction: I find that an enormously helpful distinction, and support the Aristotelian view. Schaffer's general line is that what exists is fairly uncontroversial and dull, but the interesting truths about the world emerge when we grasp its structure. |
| 13751 | If you tore the metaphysics out of philosophy, the whole enterprise would collapse [Schaffer,J] |
| Full Idea: Traditional metaphysics is so tightly woven into the fabric of philosophy that it cannot be torn out without the whole tapestry unravelling. | |
| From: Jonathan Schaffer (On What Grounds What [2009], 2.3) | |
| A reaction: I often wonder why the opponents of metaphysics still continue to do philosophy. I don't see how you address questions of ethics, or philosophy of mathematics (etc) without coming up against highly general and abstract over-questions. |
| 13743 | We should not multiply basic entities, but we can have as many derivative entities as we like [Schaffer,J] |
| Full Idea: Occam's Razor should only be understood to concern substances: do not multiply basic entities without necessity. There is no problem with the multiplication of derivative entities - they are an 'ontological free lunch'. | |
| From: Jonathan Schaffer (On What Grounds What [2009], 2.1) | |
| A reaction: The phrase 'ontological free lunch' comes from Armstrong. This is probably what Occam meant. A few extra specks of dust, or even a few more numbers (thank you, Cantor!) don't seem to challenge the principle. |
| 9821 | A definition need not capture the sense of an expression - just get the reference right [Frege, by Dummett] |
| Full Idea: Frege expressly denies that a correct definition need capture the sense of the expression it defines: it need only get the reference right. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894]) by Michael Dummett - Frege philosophy of mathematics Ch.3 | |
| A reaction: This might hit up against the renate/cordate problem, of two co-extensive concepts, where the definition gets the extension right, but the intension wrong. |
| 9585 | Since every definition is an equation, one cannot define equality itself [Frege] |
| Full Idea: Since every definition is an equation, one cannot define equality itself. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.327) | |
| A reaction: This seems a particularly nice instance of the general rule that 'you have to start somewhere'. It is a nice test case for the nature of meaning to ask 'what do you understand when you understand equality?', given that you can't define it. |
| 17446 | Counting rests on one-one correspondence, of numerals to objects [Frege] |
| Full Idea: Counting rests itself on a one-one correlation, namely of numerals 1 to n and the objects. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894]), quoted by Richard G. Heck - Cardinality, Counting and Equinumerosity 3 | |
| A reaction: Parsons observes that counting will establish a one-one correspondence, but that doesn't make it the aim of counting, and so Frege hasn't answered Husserl properly. Which of the two is conceptually prior? How do you decide. |
| 9582 | Husserl rests sameness of number on one-one correlation, forgetting the correlation with numbers themselves [Frege] |
| Full Idea: When Husserl says that sameness of number can be shown by one-one correlation, he forgets that this counting itself rests on a univocal one-one correlation, namely that between the numerals 1 to n and the objects of the set. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.326) | |
| A reaction: This is the platonist talking. Neo-logicism is attempting to build numbers just from the one-one correlation of objects. |
| 9586 | In a number-statement, something is predicated of a concept [Frege] |
| Full Idea: In a number-statement, something is predicated of a concept. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.328) | |
| A reaction: A succinct statement of Frege's theory of numbers. By my lights that would make numbers at least second-order abstractions. |
| 9580 | Our concepts recognise existing relations, they don't change them [Frege] |
| Full Idea: The bringing of an object under a concept is merely the recognition of a relation which previously already obtained, [but in the abstractionist view] objects are essentially changed by the process, so that objects brought under a concept become similar. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.324) | |
| A reaction: Frege's view would have to account for occasional misapplications of concepts, like taking a dolphin to be a fish, or falsely thinking there is someone in the cellar. |
| 9589 | Numbers are not real like the sea, but (crucially) they are still objective [Frege] |
| Full Idea: The sea is something real and a number is not; but this does not prevent it from being something objective; and that is the important thing. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.337) | |
| A reaction: This seems a qualification of Frege's platonism. It is why people start talking about abstract items which 'subsist', instead of 'exist'. It shows Frege's motivation in all this, which is to secure logic and maths from the vagaries of psychology. |
| 13741 | If 'there are red roses' implies 'there are roses', then 'there are prime numbers' implies 'there are numbers' [Schaffer,J] |
| Full Idea: We can automatically infer 'there are roses' from 'there are red roses' (with no shift in the meaning of 'roses'). Likewise one can automatically infer 'there are numbers' from 'there are prime numbers'. | |
| From: Jonathan Schaffer (On What Grounds What [2009], 2.1) | |
| A reaction: He similarly observes that the atheist's 'God is a fictional character' implies 'there are fictional characters'. Schaffer is not committing to a strong platonism with his claim - merely that the existence of numbers is hardly worth disputing. |
| 9577 | The naïve view of number is that it is like a heap of things, or maybe a property of a heap [Frege] |
| Full Idea: The most naïve opinion of number is that it is something like a heap in which things are contained. The next most naïve view is the conception of number as the property of a heap, cleansing the objects of their particulars. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.323) | |
| A reaction: A hundred toothbrushes and a hundred sponges can be seen to contain the same number (by one-to-one mapping), without actually knowing what that number is. There is something numerical in the heap, even if the number is absent. |
| 13748 | Grounding is unanalysable and primitive, and is the basic structuring concept in metaphysics [Schaffer,J] |
| Full Idea: Grounding should be taken as primitive, as per the neo-Aristotelian approach. Grounding is an unanalyzable but needed notion - it is the primitive structuring conception of metaphysics. | |
| From: Jonathan Schaffer (On What Grounds What [2009], 2.2) | |
| A reaction: [he cites K.Fine 1991] I find that this simple claim clarifies the discussions of Kit Fine, where you are not always quite sure what the game is. I agree fully with it. It makes metaphysics interesting, where cataloguing entities is boring. |
| 13747 | Supervenience is just modal correlation [Schaffer,J] |
| Full Idea: Supervenience is mere modal correlation. | |
| From: Jonathan Schaffer (On What Grounds What [2009], 2.2) |
| 13744 | The cosmos is the only fundamental entity, from which all else exists by abstraction [Schaffer,J] |
| Full Idea: My preferred view is that there is only one fundamental entity - the whole concrete cosmos - from which all else exists by abstraction. | |
| From: Jonathan Schaffer (On What Grounds What [2009], 2.1) | |
| A reaction: This looks to me like weak anti-realism - that there are no natural 'joints' in nature - but I don't think Schaffer intends that. I take the joints to be fundamentals, which necessitates that the cosmos has parts. His 'abstraction' is clearly a process. |
| 9578 | If objects are just presentation, we get increasing abstraction by ignoring their properties [Frege] |
| Full Idea: If an object is just presentation, we can pay less attention to a property and it disappears. By letting one characteristic after another disappear, we obtain concepts that are increasingly more abstract. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.324) | |
| A reaction: Frege despises this view. Note there is scope in the despised view for degrees or levels of abstraction, defined in terms of number of properties ignored. Part of Frege's criticism is realist. He retains the object, while Husserl imagines it different. |
| 13739 | Maybe categories are just the different ways that things depend on basic substances [Schaffer,J] |
| Full Idea: Maybe the categories are determined by the different grounding relations, ..so that categories just are the ways things depend on substances. ...Categories are places in the dependence ordering. | |
| From: Jonathan Schaffer (On What Grounds What [2009], 1.3) |
| 13742 | There exist heaps with no integral unity, so we should accept arbitrary composites in the same way [Schaffer,J] |
| Full Idea: I am happy to accept universal composition, on the grounds that there are heaps, piles etc with no integral unity, and that arbitrary composites are no less unified than heaps. | |
| From: Jonathan Schaffer (On What Grounds What [2009], 2.1 n11) | |
| A reaction: The metaphysical focus is then placed on what constitutes 'integral unity', which is precisely the question which most interested Aristotle. Clearly if there is nothing more to an entity than its components, scattering them isn't destruction. |
| 13752 | The notion of 'grounding' can explain integrated wholes in a way that mere aggregates can't [Schaffer,J] |
| Full Idea: The notion of grounding my capture a crucial mereological distinction (missing from classical mereology) between an integrated whole with genuine unity, and a mere aggregate. x is an integrated whole if it grounds its proper parts. | |
| From: Jonathan Schaffer (On What Grounds What [2009], 3.1) | |
| A reaction: That gives a nice theoretical notion, but if you remove each of the proper parts, does x remain? Is it a bare particular? I take it that it will have to be an abstract principle, the one Aristotle was aiming at with his notion of 'form'. Schaffer agrees. |
| 13749 | Belief in impossible worlds may require dialetheism [Schaffer,J] |
| Full Idea: One motivation for dialetheism is the view that there are impossible worlds. | |
| From: Jonathan Schaffer (On What Grounds What [2009], 2.3) |
| 13740 | 'Moorean certainties' are more credible than any sceptical argument [Schaffer,J] |
| Full Idea: A 'Moorean certainty' is when something is more credible than any philosopher's argument to the contrary. | |
| From: Jonathan Schaffer (On What Grounds What [2009], 2.1) | |
| A reaction: The reference is to G.E. Moore's famous claim that the existence of his hand is more certain than standard sceptical arguments. It sounds empiricist, but they might be parallel rational truths, of basic logic or arithmetic. |
| 7295 | Maybe induction is only reliable IF reality is stable [Mitchell,A] |
| Full Idea: Maybe we should say that IF regularities are stable, only then is induction a reliable procedure. | |
| From: Alistair Mitchell (talk [2006]), quoted by PG - Db (ideas) | |
| A reaction: This seems to me a very good proposal. In a wildly unpredictable reality, it is hard to see how anyone could learn from experience, or do any reasoning about the future. Natural stability is the axiom on which induction is built. |
| 9581 | Many people have the same thought, which is the component, not the private presentation [Frege] |
| Full Idea: The same thought can be grasped by many people. The components of a thought, and even more so the things themselves, must be distinguished from the presentations which in the soul accompany the grasping of a thought. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.325) | |
| A reaction: This is the basic realisation, also found in Russell, of how so much confusion has crept into philosophy, in Berkeley, for example. Frege starts down the road which leads to the externalist view of content. |
| 9579 | Disregarding properties of two cats still leaves different objects, but what is now the difference? [Frege] |
| Full Idea: If from a black cat and a white cat we disregard colour, then posture, then location, ..we finally derive something which is completely without restrictions on content; but what is derived from the objects does differ, although it is not easy to say how. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.324) | |
| A reaction: This is a key objection to abstractionism for Frege - we are counting two cats, not two substrata of essential catness, or whatever. But what makes a cat countable? (Key question!) It isn't its colour, or posture or location. |
| 9587 | How do you find the right level of inattention; you eliminate too many or too few characteristics [Frege] |
| Full Idea: Inattention is a very strong lye which must not be too concentrated, or it dissolves everything (such as the connection between the objects), but must not be too weak, to produce sufficient change. Personally I cannot find the proper dilution. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.330) | |
| A reaction: We may sympathise with the lack of precision here (frustrating for a logician), but it is not difficult to say of a baseball defence 'just concentrate on the relations, and ignore the individuals who implement it'. You retain basic baseball skills. |
| 9588 | Number-abstraction somehow makes things identical without changing them! [Frege] |
| Full Idea: Number-abstraction simply has the wonderful and very fruitful property of making things absolutely the same as one another without altering them. Something like this is possible only in the psychological wash-tub. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.332) | |
| A reaction: Frege can be awfully sarcastic. I don't really see his difficulty. For mathematics we only need to know what is countable about an object - we don't need to know how many hairs there are on the cat, only that it has identity. |
| 9583 | Psychological logicians are concerned with sense of words, but mathematicians study the reference [Frege] |
| Full Idea: The psychological logicians are concerned with the sense of the words and with the presentations, which they do not distinguish from the sense; but the mathematicians are concerned with the matter itself, with the reference of the words. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.326) | |
| A reaction: This is helpful for showing the point of his sense/reference distinction; it is part of his campaign against psychologism, by showing that there is a non-psychological component to language - the reference, where it meets the public world. |
| 9584 | Identity baffles psychologists, since A and B must be presented differently to identify them [Frege] |
| Full Idea: The relation of sameness remains puzzling to a psychological logician. They cannot say 'A is the same as B', because that requires distinguishing A from B, so that these would have to be different presentations. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.327) | |
| A reaction: This is why Frege needed the concept of reference, so that identity could be outside the mind (as in Hesperus = Phosophorus). Think about an electron; now think about a different electron. |