19 ideas
| 18928 | If maximalism is necessary, then that nothing exists has a truthmaker, which it can't have [Cameron] |
| Full Idea: I think truthmaker theory is contingently true. [n24] If there could have been nothing, what makes that true? But if truthmaker maximalism is a necessary truth, there's necessarily something. | |
| From: Ross P. Cameron (Truthmaking for Presentists [2011], 4 n24) | |
| A reaction: Truthmaking is beginning to feel like Gödel's Theorems. You can 'make' lots and lots of truths ('prove' in Gödel), but there will be truths that elude the making. Truthmaker theory itself will be one example. So is Maximalism another one? |
| 18931 | Determinate truths don't need extra truthmakers, just truthmakers that are themselves determinate [Cameron] |
| Full Idea: I reject saying there must be an additional truthmaker for 'Determinately, p': rather, I say that the truthmaker for p must simply be a determinate existent rather than a mere existent. | |
| From: Ross P. Cameron (Truthmaking for Presentists [2011], 6) | |
| A reaction: As he puts it (quite persuasively), God doesn't need to add an extra truthmaker for a determinate truth. Cameron rejects Necessitarianism. He uses 'determinate' fairly uncritically. What makes the truth of the truthmaker's determinacy? |
| 18932 | The facts about the existence of truthmakers can't have a further explanation [Cameron] |
| Full Idea: The orthodox truthmaker theorist thinks the facts concerning the existence of the truthmakers do not admit of further explanation. | |
| From: Ross P. Cameron (Truthmaking for Presentists [2011], 6) | |
| A reaction: It is fairly obvious, I suppose, that not every truth can have a truthmaker, just as the verification principle could not be verified, and you can't perceive your perception in order to check it. Could God withdraw the power of truthmaking? |
| 18923 | The present property 'having been F' says nothing about a thing's intrinsic nature [Cameron] |
| Full Idea: The property 'being such as to have been a child' is suspicious because it points beyond its instances in the sense that a thing's presently having that property tells us nothing about the present intrinsic nature of the thing. | |
| From: Ross P. Cameron (Truthmaking for Presentists [2011], 2) | |
| A reaction: This is his objection to what he calls the 'Lucretian' strategy, which tries to make history into a property of present reality. That is implausible, I think, because there is no test for the property, apart from knowledge of the past. Reality is tensed? |
| 18926 | One temporal distibution property grounds our present and past truths [Cameron] |
| Full Idea: Temporal distributional properties are fundamental - it is exactly the same property that is grounding the truth about how the bearer now is that is grounding truths about how the bearer was. | |
| From: Ross P. Cameron (Truthmaking for Presentists [2011], 4) | |
| A reaction: Some kind of slight of hand is going on here, though he does a nice job of confronting all possible objections. This is the sort of metaphysics you come up with when you stake everything on the dubious notion of a 'property'. |
| 18929 | We don't want present truthmakers for the past, if they are about to cease to exist! [Cameron] |
| Full Idea: Whilst not logically inconsistent, it would be bad if it could now be true that ten years ago there was a sea battle, but that five years ago it wasn't true that five years before that there was a sea battle. | |
| From: Ross P. Cameron (Truthmaking for Presentists [2011], 4) | |
| A reaction: Nicely makes the point that you can't let the past rely on truthmakers in the present, if those truthmakers are about to go out of existence. So you need a sustained truthmaker, without giving up presentism. Enter 'temporally distributed properties'? |
| 19494 | Fictionalism allows that simulated beliefs may be tracking real facts [Yablo] |
| Full Idea: The fictionalist offers the option that your simulated beliefs and assertions may be tracking a realm of genuine facts, or a realm of what you take to be facts. | |
| From: Stephen Yablo (Go Figure: a Path through Fictionalism [2001], 13) | |
| A reaction: This means that fictionalism does not have to be an error theory. That is, we aren't mistakenly believing something that we actually made up. Instead we are sensibly believing something we know to be not literally true. Love it. |
| 18924 | Being polka-dotted is a 'spatial distribution' property [Cameron] |
| Full Idea: Spatial distribution properties say how things are across a region of space, such as being polka-dotted. | |
| From: Ross P. Cameron (Truthmaking for Presentists [2011], 3) | |
| A reaction: I think the routine fallacy of inferring properties from predicates is buried here. We truthfully describe it as 'polka-dotted', but that doesn't mean we must reify polka-dottedness, and see it as a feature of the world. What is a 'jumbled' space? |
| 18930 | Change is instantiation of a non-uniform distributional property, like 'being red-then-orange' [Cameron] |
| Full Idea: What change is on the account being offered is to instantiate a non-uniform distributional property. Being red at one time and orange at a later time is to be analysed as instantiating the distributional property 'being red-then-orange'. | |
| From: Ross P. Cameron (Truthmaking for Presentists [2011], 4) | |
| A reaction: One of those moments when you begin to doubt whether 'being analysed' successfully actually adds much to our wisdom. His property sounds suspiciously 'gruesome' - i.e. subject to the vagaries of how we chose to describe the thing. |
| 19493 | Governing possible worlds theory is the fiction that if something is possible, it happens in a world [Yablo] |
| Full Idea: The governing fiction of possible worlds theory says that whenever something is possible, there is a world where it happens. | |
| From: Stephen Yablo (Go Figure: a Path through Fictionalism [2001], 05) | |
| A reaction: This sounds like the only sensible attitude to possible worlds I can think of. |
| 4058 | Is someone's right to life diminished if they were conceived by a rape? [Thomson] |
| Full Idea: Can we say that a person has a right to life only if they didn't come into existence through rape, or that the latter have less right to life? | |
| From: Judith (Jarvis) Thomson (A Defense of Abortion [1971], p.126) | |
| A reaction: This would clearly be an inconsistency for some opponents of abortion who allow rape as an exception. |
| 4060 | The right to life does not bestow the right to use someone else's body to support that life [Thomson] |
| Full Idea: Having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person's body. | |
| From: Judith (Jarvis) Thomson (A Defense of Abortion [1971], p.131) | |
| A reaction: A very nice point. You have a right to your life once you are the sole owner of it. |
| 4062 | No one is morally required to make huge sacrifices to keep someone else alive for nine months [Thomson] |
| Full Idea: No one is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, and other interests and commitments, for nine months, in order to keep another person alive. | |
| From: Judith (Jarvis) Thomson (A Defense of Abortion [1971], p.135) | |
| A reaction: It is a trade-off. It might become a duty if society (or even a husband) urgently needed the baby. |
| 4061 | The right to life is not a right not to be killed, but not to be killed unjustly [Thomson] |
| Full Idea: Maybe the right to life consists not in the right not to be killed, but in the right not to be killed unjustly. | |
| From: Judith (Jarvis) Thomson (A Defense of Abortion [1971], p.131) | |
| A reaction: Sounds tautological. There is no right to life, then, but just the requirement that people behave justly? |
| 4057 | A newly fertilized ovum is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree [Thomson] |
| Full Idea: A newly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree. | |
| From: Judith (Jarvis) Thomson (A Defense of Abortion [1971], p.125) | |
| A reaction: This relies heavily on the philosopher's concept of a 'person', but it seems right to me. |
| 4695 | Maybe abortion can be justified despite the foetus having full human rights [Thomson, by Foot] |
| Full Idea: Thomson suggests that abortion can be justified without the need to deny that the foetus has the moral rights of a human person. | |
| From: report of Judith (Jarvis) Thomson (A Defense of Abortion [1971]) by Philippa Foot - Killing and Letting Die p.86 | |
| A reaction: Thomson uses a dubious analogy between pregnancy and being hooked up to someone for life-support. Presumably killing an innocent person is occasionally justifiable, but the situation would normally be more abnormal than pregnancy. |
| 4059 | It can't be murder for a mother to perform an abortion on herself to save her own life [Thomson] |
| Full Idea: It cannot seriously be thought to be murder if a mother performs an abortion on herself to save her own life (if, say, she had a serious heart condition). | |
| From: Judith (Jarvis) Thomson (A Defense of Abortion [1971], p.127) | |
| A reaction: An extreme view might condemn such an action, but it can hardly be based on the 'sanctity of life'. |
| 4696 | The foetus is safe in the womb, so abortion initiates its death, with the mother as the agent. [Foot on Thomson] |
| Full Idea: A fetus is not in jeopardy because it is in the womb, so an abortion originates the fatal sequence, and the mother is the agent. Hence Thomson's argument is invalid, and we must return to question of the moral status of the foetus. | |
| From: comment on Judith (Jarvis) Thomson (A Defense of Abortion [1971]) by Philippa Foot - Killing and Letting Die p.86 | |
| A reaction: The problem would be if a 'person' was safe, but only if I continue some sustained effort which is not required of me by normal duties. |
| 18927 | Surely if things extend over time, then time itself must be extended? [Cameron] |
| Full Idea: If there are temporally extended entities - and there are - then there must be extended regions of time for those entities to extend in. Hence presentism is false. | |
| From: Ross P. Cameron (Truthmaking for Presentists [2011], 4) | |
| A reaction: [Cameron is playing devil's advocate] Something has to be weird here, and I take it to be the fact that the past no longer exists, and yet it is fixed and supports truths. Get over it. My childhood has gone. Totally. Irrevocably. |