|
18933
|
Not-Being obviously doesn't exist, and the five modes of Being are all impossible [Gorgias, by Diog. Laertius]
|
|
Full Idea:
I. Nothing exists. a) Not-Being does not exist. b) Being does not exist as everlasting, as created, as both, as One, or as Many. II. If anything does exist, it is incomprehensible. III. If existence is comprehensible, it is incommunicable.
|
|
From:
report of Gorgias (fragments/reports [c.443 BCE], B03) by Diogenes Laertius - Lives of Eminent Philosophers 09
|
|
A reaction:
[Also Sextus Empiricus, Against Logicians I.65-] For Part I he works through all the possible modes of being he can think of, and explains why none of them are possible. It is worth remembering that Gorgias loved rhetoric, not philosophy!
|
|
12434
|
Why is this necessary, and what is necessity in general; why is this necessary truth true, and why necessary? [Hale]
|
|
Full Idea:
We must distinguish between explaining particular necessities and explaining necessity in general; and we ought to distinguish between explaining, in regard to any necessary truth, why it is true, and explaining why it is necessary.
|
|
From:
Bob Hale (The Source of Necessity [2002], p.308)
|
|
A reaction:
Useful. The pluralist view I associate with Fine says we can explain types of necessity, but not necessity in general. If we seek truthmakers, there is a special case of what adds the necessity to the truth.
|
|
12433
|
If necessity rests on linguistic conventions, those are contingent, so there is no necessity [Hale]
|
|
Full Idea:
If the alleged necessity, e,g, 2+2=4, really does depend upon a convention governing the use of the words in which we state it, and the existence of that convention is merely a contingent matter, then it can't after all be necessary.
|
|
From:
Bob Hale (The Source of Necessity [2002], p.302)
|
|
A reaction:
[Hale is citing Blackburn for this claim] Hale suggests replies, by keeping truth and meaning separate, and involving laws of logic. Blackburn clearly has a good point.
|
|
12436
|
Concept-identities explain how we know necessities, not why they are necessary [Hale]
|
|
Full Idea:
It seems to me that identity-relations among concepts have more to do with explaining how we know that vixens are female foxes etc., than with explaining why it is necessary, and, more generally, with explaining why some necessities are knowable a priori.
|
|
From:
Bob Hale (The Source of Necessity [2002], P.313)
|
|
A reaction:
Hale rejects the conceptual and conventional accounts of necessity, in favour of the essentialist view. This strikes me as a good suggestion of Hale's, since I agree with him about the essentialism.
|
|
9866
|
Gorgias says rhetoric is the best of arts, because it enslaves without using force [Gorgias, by Plato]
|
|
Full Idea:
Gorgias insists that the art of persuasion is superior to all others because it enslaves all the rest, with their own consent, not by force, and is therefore by far the best of all the arts.
|
|
From:
report of Gorgias (fragments/reports [c.443 BCE]) by Plato - Philebus 58a
|
|
A reaction:
A nice point, and it is not unreasonable to rank the arts in order of their power. To enchant, without achieving agreement, and to speak truth without persuading, are both very fine, but there is something about success that cannot be gainsaid.
|
|
17371
|
Some kinds are very explanatory, but others less so, and some not at all [Devitt]
|
|
Full Idea:
Explanatory significance, hence naturalness, comes in degrees: positing some kinds may be very explanatory, positing others, only a little bit explanatory, positing others still, not explanatory at all.
|
|
From:
Michael Devitt (Natural Kinds and Biological Realism [2009], 4)
|
|
A reaction:
He mentions 'cousin' as a natural kind that is not very explanatory of anything. It interests us as humans, but not at all in other animals, it seems. ...Nice thought, though, that two squirrels might be cousins...
|