|
10838
|
To explain a concept, we need its purpose, not just its rules of usage [Dummett]
|
|
Full Idea:
We cannot in general suppose that we give a proper account of a concept by describing those circumstance in which we do, and those in which we do not, make use of the relevant word. We explain the point of the concept, what we use the word for.
|
|
From:
Michael Dummett (Truth [1959], p.231)
|
|
A reaction:
Well said. I am beginning to develop a campaign to make sure that analytical philosophy focuses on understanding concepts (in a full 'logos' sort of way), and doesn't just settle for logical form or definition or rules of usage.
|
|
10840
|
We must be able to specify truths in a precise language, like winning moves in a game [Dummett]
|
|
Full Idea:
For a particular bounded language, if it is free of ambiguity and inconsistency, it must be possible to characterize the true sentences of the language; somewhat as, for a given game, we can say which moves are winning moves.
|
|
From:
Michael Dummett (Truth [1959], p.237)
|
|
A reaction:
The background of this sounds rather like Tarski, with truth just being a baton passed from one part of the language to another, though Dummett adds the very un-Tarskian notion that truth has a value.
|
|
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'.
|
|
12699
|
A body would be endless disunited parts, if it did not have a unifying form or soul [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
Without soul or form of some kind, a body would have no being, because no part of it can be designated which does not in turn consist of more parts. Thus nothing could be designated in a body which could be called 'this thing', or a unity.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (Conspectus libelli (book outline) [1678], A6.4.1988), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 1
|
|
A reaction:
The locution 'soul or form' is disconcerting, and you have to spend some time with Leibniz to get the hang of it. The 'soul' is not intelligent, and is more like a source of action and response.
|
|
12700
|
Form or soul gives unity and duration; matter gives multiplicity and change [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
Substantial form, or soul, is the principle of unity and duration, matter is that of multiplicity and change
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (Conspectus libelli (book outline) [1678], A6.4.1398-9), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 2
|
|
A reaction:
Leibniz was a fan of the unfashionable Aristotle, and tried to put a spin on his views consonant with contemporary Hobbesian mechanistic views. Oddly, he likes the idea that 'form' is indestructable, which I don't understand.
|
|
12736
|
If we understand God and his choices, we have a priori knowledge of contingent truths [Leibniz, by Garber]
|
|
Full Idea:
Insofar as we have some insight into how God chooses, we can know a priori the laws of nature that God chooses for this best of all possible worlds. In this way, it is possible to have genuine a priori knowledge of contingent truths.
|
|
From:
report of Gottfried Leibniz (Conspectus libelli (book outline) [1678], A6.4.1998-9) by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 6
|
|
A reaction:
I think it would be doubtful whether our knowledge of God's choosings would count as a priori. How do we discover them? Ah! We derive God from the ontological argument, and his choosings from the divine perfection implied thereby.
|