28 ideas
3993 | Arguments are nearly always open to challenge, but they help to explain a position rather than force people to believe [Lewis] |
Full Idea: Philosophical arguments are never incontrovertible - well, hardly ever. Their purpose is to help expound a position, not to coerce agreement. | |
From: David Lewis (Lewis: reduction of mind (on himself) [1994], p.419) | |
A reaction: A bit over-cautious, perhaps. Most philosophers are converted to a position when they hear a single key argument, though it is probably 'tipping the balance' of previous discussions. |
9921 | 'True' is only occasionally useful, as in 'everything Fermat believed was true' [Burgess/Rosen] |
Full Idea: In the disquotational view of truth, what saves truth from being wholly redundant and so wholly useless, is mainly that it provides an ability to state generalisations like 'Everything Fermat believed was true'. | |
From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], I.A.2.c) | |
A reaction: Sounds like the thin end of the wedge. Presumably we can infer that the first thing Fermat believed on his last Christmas Day was true. |
9924 | Modal logic gives an account of metalogical possibility, not metaphysical possibility [Burgess/Rosen] |
Full Idea: If you want a logic of metaphysical possibility, the existing literature was originally developed to supply a logic of metalogical possibility, and still reflects its origins. | |
From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.B.3.b) | |
A reaction: This is a warning shot (which I don't fully understand) to people like me, who were beginning to think they could fill their ontology with possibilia, which could then be incorporated into the wider account of logical thinking. Ah well... |
9933 | The paradoxes are only a problem for Frege; Cantor didn't assume every condition determines a set [Burgess/Rosen] |
Full Idea: The paradoxes only seem to arise in connection with Frege's logical notion of extension or class, not Cantor's mathematical notion of set. Cantor never assumed that every condition determines a set. | |
From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], III.C.1.b) | |
A reaction: This makes the whole issue a parochial episode in the history of philosophy, not a central question. Cantor favoured some sort of abstractionism (see Kit Fine on the subject). |
9928 | Mereology implies that acceptance of entities entails acceptance of conglomerates [Burgess/Rosen] |
Full Idea: Mereology has ontological implications. The acceptance of some initial entities involves the acceptance of many further entities, arbitrary wholes having the entities as parts. It must accept conglomerates. Geometric points imply geometric regions. | |
From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.C.1.b) | |
A reaction: Presumably without the wholes being entailed by the parts, there is no subject called 'mereology'. But if the conglomeration is unrestricted, there is not much left to be said. 'Restricted' composition (by nature?) sounds a nice line. |
9926 | A relation is either a set of sets of sets, or a set of sets [Burgess/Rosen] |
Full Idea: While in general a relation is taken to be a set of ordered pairs <u, v> = {{u}, {u, v}}, and hence a set of sets of sets, in special cases a relation can be represented by a set of sets. | |
From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.C.1.a) | |
A reaction: [See book for their examples, which are <, symmetric, and arbitrary] The fact that a relation (or anything else) can be represented in a certain way should never ever be taken to mean that you now know what the thing IS. |
9932 | The paradoxes no longer seem crucial in critiques of set theory [Burgess/Rosen] |
Full Idea: Recent commentators have de-emphasised the set paradoxes because they play no prominent part in motivating the most articulate and active opponents of set theory, such as Kronecker (constructivism) or Brouwer (intuitionism), or Weyl (predicativism). | |
From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], III.C.1.b) | |
A reaction: This seems to be a sad illustration of the way most analytical philosophers have to limp along behind the logicians and mathematicians, arguing furiously about problems that have largely been abandoned. |
9923 | We should talk about possible existence, rather than actual existence, of numbers [Burgess/Rosen] |
Full Idea: The modal strategy for numbers is to replace assumptions about the actual existence of numbers by assumptions about the possible existence of numbers | |
From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.B.3.a) | |
A reaction: This seems to be quite a good way of dealing with very large numbers and infinities. It is not clear whether 5 is so regularly actualised that we must consider it as permanent, or whether it is just a prominent permanent possibility. |
9925 | Structuralism and nominalism are normally rivals, but might work together [Burgess/Rosen] |
Full Idea: Usually structuralism and nominalism are considered rivals. But structuralism can also be the first step in a strategy of nominalist reconstrual or paraphrase. | |
From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.C.0) | |
A reaction: Hellman and later Chihara seem to be the main proponents of nominalist structuralism. My sympathies lie with this strategy. Are there objects at the nodes of the structure, or is the structure itself platonic? Mill offers a route. |
9934 | Number words became nouns around the time of Plato [Burgess/Rosen] |
Full Idea: The transition from using number words purely as adjectives to using them extensively as nouns has been traced to 'around the time of Plato'. | |
From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], III.C.2.a) | |
A reaction: [The cite Kneale and Kneale VI,§2 for this] It is just too tempting to think that in fact Plato (and early Platonists) were totally responsible for this shift, since the whole reification of numbers seems to be inherently platonist. |
3990 | The whole truth supervenes on the physical truth [Lewis] |
Full Idea: The whole truth supervenes on the physical truth. | |
From: David Lewis (Lewis: reduction of mind (on himself) [1994], p.412) | |
A reaction: This seems to me the central truth about brains, and we should not be lured into abandoning it. We should not, however, exclude the possibility that there is a non-physical reality. |
3991 | Where pixels make up a picture, supervenience is reduction [Lewis] |
Full Idea: In the case of millions of pixels making up a picture on a computer screen, the supervenience is reduction. | |
From: David Lewis (Lewis: reduction of mind (on himself) [1994], p.414) | |
A reaction: Since 'supervenience' seems a suspect relationship about which no one is clear, this is a point very much worth making. |
9918 | Abstract/concrete is a distinction of kind, not degree [Burgess/Rosen] |
Full Idea: The distinction of abstract and concrete is one of kind and not degree. | |
From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], I.A.1.a) | |
A reaction: I think I must agree with this. If there is a borderline, it would be in particulars that seem to have an abstract aspect to them. A horse involves the abstraction of being a horse, and it involves be one horse. |
9929 | Much of what science says about concrete entities is 'abstraction-laden' [Burgess/Rosen] |
Full Idea: Much of what science says about concrete entities is 'abstraction-laden'. | |
From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], III.A.1.d) | |
A reaction: Not just science. In ordinary conversation we continually refer to particulars using so-called 'universal' predicates and object-terms, which are presumably abstractions. 'I've just seen an elephant'. |
9927 | Mathematics has ascended to higher and higher levels of abstraction [Burgess/Rosen] |
Full Idea: In mathematics, since the beginning of the nineteenth century, there has been an ascent to higher and higher levels of abstraction. | |
From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.C.1.b) | |
A reaction: I am interested in clarifying what this means, which might involve the common sense and psychological view of the matter, as well as some sort of formal definition in terms of equivalence (or whatever). |
9930 | Abstraction is on a scale, of sets, to attributes, to type-formulas, to token-formulas [Burgess/Rosen] |
Full Idea: There is a scale of abstractness that leads downwards from sets through attributes to formulas as abstract types and on to formulas as abstract tokens. | |
From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], III.B.2.c) | |
A reaction: Presumably the 'abstract tokens' at the bottom must have some interpretation, to support the system. Presumably one can keep going upwards, through sets of sets of sets. |
3995 | A mind is an organ of representation [Lewis] |
Full Idea: A mind is an organ of representation. | |
From: David Lewis (Lewis: reduction of mind (on himself) [1994], p.421) | |
A reaction: This does not seem to necessarily involve awareness, so it seems to put intentionality at the centre of things. It is a good slogan. |
3994 | Human pain might be one thing; Martian pain might be something else [Lewis] |
Full Idea: Human pain might be one thing. Martian pain might be something else. | |
From: David Lewis (Lewis: reduction of mind (on himself) [1994], p.420) | |
A reaction: A key suggestion in support of type-type physicalism, and against the multiple realisability objection to the identity theory |
3989 | I am a reductionist about mind because I am an a priori reductionist about everything [Lewis] |
Full Idea: My reductionism about mind began as part of an a priori reductionism about everything. | |
From: David Lewis (Lewis: reduction of mind (on himself) [1994], p.412) | |
A reaction: He says this is 'a priori' to avoid giving hostages to fortune, but I think is the best explanation of the total evidence facing us |
3992 | Folk psychology makes good predictions, by associating mental states with causal roles [Lewis] |
Full Idea: Folk psychology is a powerful instrument of prediction, …which associates with each mental state a typical causal role. | |
From: David Lewis (Lewis: reduction of mind (on himself) [1994], p.416) | |
A reaction: This seems a good account of why we should take folk psychology very seriously, even if it is sometimes wrong (e.g. about people who are mentally ill). |
3996 | Folk psychology doesn't say that there is a language of thought [Lewis] |
Full Idea: I don't believe that folk psychology says there is a language of thought. | |
From: David Lewis (Lewis: reduction of mind (on himself) [1994], p.422) | |
A reaction: This is aimed at Jerry Fodor. Certainly folk psychology is a strong theory, but a so-called 'language of thought' (the brain's machine code) seems a much weaker one. |
3997 | Nothing shows that all content is 'wide', or that wide content has logical priority [Lewis] |
Full Idea: There is nothing to support the thesis that wide content is the only kind of content, or that it is any way pre-eminent or basic. | |
From: David Lewis (Lewis: reduction of mind (on himself) [1994], p.424) | |
A reaction: The idea that all content is 'wide' seems quite wrong. We can't all be wrong about the meaning of a word, because the underlying facts have not yet been discovered. |
3998 | If you don't share an external world with a brain-in-a-vat, then externalism says you don't share any beliefs [Lewis] |
Full Idea: If the famous brain in a bottle is your exact duplicate in brain states, but only experiences the computer's virtual reality, so that you share no objects of acquaintance, then according to externalists you share no beliefs whatsoever. | |
From: David Lewis (Lewis: reduction of mind (on himself) [1994], p.424) | |
A reaction: A very nice reductio ad absurdum of the idea that all concepts and beliefs have external meaning. |
3999 | A spontaneous duplicate of you would have your brain states but no experience, so externalism would deny him any beliefs [Lewis] |
Full Idea: According to externalists, Davidson's 'swampman' is your exact duplicate in brains states, but hasn't had time to become acquainted with much, so he has virtually no beliefs. | |
From: David Lewis (Lewis: reduction of mind (on himself) [1994], p.425) | |
A reaction: An implausible fantasy, but it does highlight the fact that beliefs and concepts are primarily internal states. |
4000 | Wide content derives from narrow content and relationships with external things [Lewis] |
Full Idea: Wide content is derivative, a product of narrow content and relationships of acquaintance with external things. | |
From: David Lewis (Lewis: reduction of mind (on himself) [1994], p.430) | |
A reaction: I would say: content is a mental state, but it is created and fixed by a community, and wide content is the part fixed by experts in the community. We can all be wrong about meanings, and occasionally most of us are wrong about a specialised meaning. |
9919 | The old debate classified representations as abstract, not entities [Burgess/Rosen] |
Full Idea: The original debate was over abstract ideas; thus it was mental (or linguistic) representations that were classified as abstract or otherwise, and not the entities represented. | |
From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], I.A.1.b) | |
A reaction: This seems to beg the question of whether there are any such entities. It is equally plausible to talk of the entities that are 'constructed', rather than 'represented'. |
7903 | The six perfections are giving, morality, patience, vigour, meditation, and wisdom [Nagarjuna] |
Full Idea: The six perfections are of giving, morality, patience, vigour, meditation, and wisdom. | |
From: Nagarjuna (Mahaprajnaparamitashastra [c.120], 88) | |
A reaction: What is 'morality', if giving is not part of it? I like patience and vigour being two of the virtues, which immediately implies an Aristotelian mean (which is always what is 'appropriate'). |
9922 | If space is really just a force-field, then it is a physical entity [Burgess/Rosen] |
Full Idea: According to many philosophical commentators, a force-field must be considered to be a physical entity, and as the distinction between space and the force-field may be considered to be merely verbal, space itself may be considered to be a physical entity. | |
From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.A.1) | |
A reaction: The ontology becomes a bit odd if we cheerfully accept that space is physical, but then we can't give the same account of time. I'm not sure how time could be physical. What's it made of? |