3 ideas
18946 | Unreflectively, we all assume there are nonexistents, and we can refer to them [Reimer] |
Full Idea: As speakers of the language, we unreflectively assume that there are nonexistents, and that reference to them is possible. | |
From: Marga Reimer (The Problem of Empty Names [2001], p.499), quoted by Sarah Sawyer - Empty Names 4 | |
A reaction: Sarah Swoyer quotes this as a good solution to the problem of empty names, and I like it. It introduces a two-tier picture of our understanding of the world, as 'unreflective' and 'reflective', but that seems good. We accept numbers 'unreflectively'. |
3648 | Empiricists are collecting ants; rationalists are spinning spiders; and bees do both [Bacon] |
Full Idea: Empiricists are like ants; they collect and put to use; but rationalists, like spiders, spin threads out of themselves. (…and bees follow the middle way, of collecting material and transforming it). | |
From: Francis Bacon (Cogitata et Visa [1607]) | |
A reaction: Nice (and so concisely expressed). Bees seem to be just more intelligent and energetic empiricists. |
14470 | Explanatory exclusion: there cannot be two separate complete explanations of a single event [Kim] |
Full Idea: The general principle of explanatory exclusion states that two or more complete and independent explanations of the same event or phenomenon cannot coexist. | |
From: Jaegwon Kim (Mechanism, purpose and explan. exclusion [1989], 3) | |
A reaction: This is a rather optimistic view of explanations, with a strong element of reality involved. I would have thought there were complete explanations at different 'levels', which were complementary to one another. |