26 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. |
| 13451 | The two best understood conceptions of set are the Iterative and the Limitation of Size [Rayo/Uzquiano] |
| Full Idea: The two best understood conceptions of set are the Iterative Conception and the Limitation of Size Conception. | |
| From: Rayo,A/Uzquiasno,G (Introduction to 'Absolute Generality' [2006], 1.2.2) |
| 13452 | Some set theories give up Separation in exchange for a universal set [Rayo/Uzquiano] |
| Full Idea: There are set theories that countenance exceptions to the Principle of Separation in exchange for a universal set. | |
| From: Rayo,A/Uzquiasno,G (Introduction to 'Absolute Generality' [2006], 1.2.2) |
| 18755 | Validity is explained as truth in all models, because that relies on the logical terms [McGee] |
| Full Idea: A model of a language assigns values to non-logical terms. If a sentence is true in every model, its truth doesn't depend on those non-logical terms. Hence the validity of an argument comes from its logical form. Thus models explain logical validity. | |
| From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 4) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] Thus you get a rigorous account of logical validity by only allowing the rigorous input of model theory. This is the modern strategy of analytic philosophy. But is 'it's red so it's coloured' logically valid? |
| 18751 | Natural language includes connectives like 'because' which are not truth-functional [McGee] |
| Full Idea: Natural language includes connectives that are not truth-functional. In order for 'p because q' to be true, both p and q have to be true, but knowing the simpler sentences are true doesn't determine whether the larger sentence is true. | |
| From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 2) |
| 13449 | We could have unrestricted quantification without having an all-inclusive domain [Rayo/Uzquiano] |
| Full Idea: The possibility of unrestricted quantification does not immediately presuppose the existence of an all-inclusive domain. One could deny an all-inclusive domain but grant that some quantifications are sometimes unrestricted. | |
| From: Rayo,A/Uzquiasno,G (Introduction to 'Absolute Generality' [2006], 1.1) | |
| A reaction: Thus you can quantify over anything you like, but only from what is available. Eat what you like (in this restaurant). |
| 13450 | Absolute generality is impossible, if there are indefinitely extensible concepts like sets and ordinals [Rayo/Uzquiano] |
| Full Idea: There are doubts about whether absolute generality is possible, if there are certain concepts which are indefinitely extensible, lacking definite extensions, and yielding an ever more inclusive hierarchy. Sets and ordinals are paradigm cases. | |
| From: Rayo,A/Uzquiasno,G (Introduction to 'Absolute Generality' [2006], 1.2.1) |
| 13453 | Perhaps second-order quantifications cover concepts of objects, rather than plain objects [Rayo/Uzquiano] |
| Full Idea: If one thought of second-order quantification as quantification over first-level Fregean concepts [note: one under which only objects fall], talk of domains might be regimented as talk of first-level concepts, which are not objects. | |
| From: Rayo,A/Uzquiasno,G (Introduction to 'Absolute Generality' [2006], 1.2.2) | |
| A reaction: That is (I take it), don't quantify over objects, but quantify over concepts, but only those under which known objects fall. One might thus achieve naïve comprehension without paradoxes. Sound like fun. |
| 18761 | Second-order variables need to range over more than collections of first-order objects [McGee] |
| Full Idea: To get any advantage from moving to second-order logic, we need to assign to second-order variables a role different from merely ranging over collections made up of things the first-order variables range over. | |
| From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 7) | |
| A reaction: Thus it is exciting if they range over genuine properties, but not so exciting if you merely characterise those properties as sets of first-order objects. This idea leads into a discussion of plural quantification. |
| 18753 | An ontologically secure semantics for predicate calculus relies on sets [McGee] |
| Full Idea: We can get a less ontologically perilous presentation of the semantics of the predicate calculus by using sets instead of concepts. | |
| From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 4) | |
| A reaction: The perilous versions rely on Fregean concepts, and notably Russell's 'concept that does not fall under itself'. The sets, of course, have to be ontologically secure, and so will involve the iterative conception, rather than naive set theory. |
| 18754 | Logically valid sentences are analytic truths which are just true because of their logical words [McGee] |
| Full Idea: Logically valid sentences are a species of analytic sentence, being true not just in virtue of the meanings of their words, but true in virtue of the meanings of their logical words. | |
| From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 4) | |
| A reaction: A helpful link between logical truths and analytic truths, which had not struck me before. |
| 18757 | Soundness theorems are uninformative, because they rely on soundness in their proofs [McGee] |
| Full Idea: Soundness theorems are seldom very informative, since typically we use informally, in proving the theorem, the very same rules whose soundness we are attempting to establish. | |
| From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 5) | |
| A reaction: [He cites Quine 1935] |
| 18760 | The culmination of Euclidean geometry was axioms that made all models isomorphic [McGee] |
| Full Idea: One of the culminating achievements of Euclidean geometry was categorical axiomatisations, that describe the geometric structure so completely that any two models of the axioms are isomorphic. The axioms are second-order. | |
| From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 7) | |
| A reaction: [He cites Veblen 1904 and Hilbert 1903] For most mathematicians, categorical axiomatisation is the best you can ever dream of (rather than a single true axiomatisation). |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 18762 | A maxim claims that if we are allowed to assert a sentence, that means it must be true [McGee] |
| Full Idea: If our linguistic conventions entitle us to assert a sentence, they thereby make it true, because of the maxim that 'truth is the norm of assertion'. | |
| From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 8) | |
| A reaction: You could only really deny that maxim if you had no belief at all in truth, but then you can assert anything you like (with full entitlement). Maybe you can assert anything you like as long as it doesn't upset anyone? Etc. |
| 13448 | The domain of an assertion is restricted by context, either semantically or pragmatically [Rayo/Uzquiano] |
| Full Idea: We generally take an assertion's domain of discourse to be implicitly restricted by context. [Note: the standard approach is that this restriction is a semantic phenomenon, but Kent Bach (2000) argues that it is a pragmatic phenomenon] | |
| From: Rayo,A/Uzquiasno,G (Introduction to 'Absolute Generality' [2006], 1.1) | |
| A reaction: I think Kent Bach is very very right about this. Follow any conversation, and ask what the domain is at any moment. The reference of a word like 'they' can drift across things, with no semantics to guide us, but only clues from context and common sense. |