Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Mahaprajnaparamitashastra', 'Counterparts and Identity' and 'works'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these texts


8 ideas

4. Formal Logic / D. Modal Logic ML / 7. Barcan Formula
To say there could have been people who don't exist, but deny those possible things, rejects Barcan [Stalnaker, by Rumfitt]
     Full Idea: Stalnaker holds that there could have been people who do not actually exist, but he denies that there are things that could have been those people. That is, he denies the unrestricted validity of the Barcan Formula.
     From: report of Robert C. Stalnaker (Counterparts and Identity [1987]) by Ian Rumfitt - The Boundary Stones of Thought 6.2
     A reaction: And quite right too, I should have thought. As they say, Jack Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe might have had a child, but the idea that we should accept some entity which might have been that child but wasn't sounds like nonsense. Except as fiction…..
10. Modality / E. Possible worlds / 3. Transworld Objects / c. Counterparts
Unlike Lewis, I defend an actualist version of counterpart theory [Stalnaker]
     Full Idea: I defend a version of counterpart theory that is quite different from Lewis's version, as it is tied to actualism (all that exists is part of the actual world) rather than possibilism (possible things may exist without actually existing).
     From: Robert C. Stalnaker (Counterparts and Identity [1987], 1)
     A reaction: This could be the theory I am after. I am sympathetic to both actualism and to counterpart theory. Off to the woodshed….
If possible worlds really differ, I can't be in more than one at a time [Stalnaker]
     Full Idea: Nothing can be in two places at once. If other possible worlds are really other universes, then clearly, you and I cannot be in them if we are here in this one.
     From: Robert C. Stalnaker (Counterparts and Identity [1987], 2)
     A reaction: This can be sensibly expressed without possible worlds. I can't embody my other possibilities while I am embodying this one (I'm too busy). Insofar as possible worlds are a good framework, they are just a precise map of common sense.
If counterparts exist strictly in one world only, this seems to be extreme invariant essentialism [Stalnaker]
     Full Idea: Counterparts involve the thesis that domains of different possible worlds are disjoint: possible individuals exist in at most one possible world. This seems to suggest extreme essentialism, where nothing could differ from how it is.
     From: Robert C. Stalnaker (Counterparts and Identity [1987], 2)
     A reaction: He quotes Salmon (1981:236) as saying counterpart theory is particularly inflexible essentialism. This is a long way from my use of 'essentialism'. The problem is just the extent to which my counterpart is 'the same' as me.
19. Language / C. Assigning Meanings / 8. Possible Worlds Semantics
Extensional semantics has individuals and sets; modal semantics has intensions, functions of world to extension [Stalnaker]
     Full Idea: Semantic values in extensional semantics are extensions, like individuals for terms, and sets for predicates. In modal semantics we have intensions, functions from worlds to appropriate extensions.
     From: Robert C. Stalnaker (Counterparts and Identity [1987], 2)
     A reaction: It seems obvious that the meaning of a word like 'giraffe' must include possible giraffes, as well as actual and deceased giraffes.
23. Ethics / C. Virtue Theory / 3. Virtues / a. Virtues
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').
27. Natural Reality / A. Classical Physics / 2. Thermodynamics / b. Heat
Heat is a state of vibration, not a substance [Joule]
     Full Idea: We consider heat not as a substance but as a state of vibration.
     From: James Joule (works [1870]), quoted by Peter Watson - Convergence 01 'Nature's'
     A reaction: The puzzle is that giving accurate accounts of vibrations, heat and movement require a quantitative substance, energy. But all we have here is movement, and the denial of a substance. Energy is 'nature's currency system'.
Joule showed that energy converts to heat, and heat to energy [Joule, by Papineau]
     Full Idea: James Joule established the equivalence of heat and mechanical energy, in the sense of showing that a specific amount of heat will always be produced by the expenditure of a given amount of energy, and vice versa.
     From: report of James Joule (works [1870]) by David Papineau - Thinking about Consciousness App 4.2
     A reaction: This was a major step towards the law of conservation of energy.