76 ideas
20186 | Unlike knowledge, wisdom cannot be misused [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: A distinctive mark of wisdom is that it cannot be misused, whereas knowledge surely can be misused. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], I 1.2) | |
A reaction: She will argue, with Aristotle, that this is because wisdom (and maybe 'true' knowledge) must include 'phronesis' (practical wisdom), which is the key to all the virtues, intellectual and moral. This idea is striking, and obviously correct. |
19694 | Wisdom is the property of a person, not of their cognitive state [Zagzebski, by Whitcomb] |
Full Idea: Zagzebski takes wisdom as literally properties of persons, not persons' cognitive states. | |
From: report of Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], p.59-60) by Dennis Whitcomb - Wisdom 'Twofold' | |
A reaction: Not sure about this. Zagzebski uses this idea to endorse epistemic virtue. But knowledge and ignorance are properties of persons too. There can be, though, a precise mental state involved in knowledge, but not in wisdom. |
12644 | Who cares what 'philosophy' is? Most pre-1950 thought doesn't now count as philosophy [Fodor] |
Full Idea: Who cares what gets called 'philosophy'? It's my impression that most of what happened in philosophy before 1950 wouldn't qualify according to the present usage. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.3.5) | |
A reaction: A rather breath-taking remark. Fodor is, of course, a devotee of David Hume, and of Descartes, but he never seems to refer to Greeks at all. Personally I presume that if you aren't doing what Plato and Aristotle were interested in, it ain't philosophy. |
12633 | Definitions often give necessary but not sufficient conditions for an extension [Fodor] |
Full Idea: Attempts to define a term frequently elicit necessary but not sufficient conditions for membership of its extension. This is called the 'X problem', as in 'kill' means 'cause to die' plus X. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.2.1 n3) | |
A reaction: Fodor is one of the great sceptics about definition. I just don't see why we have to have totally successful definitions before we can accept the process as a worthwhile endeavour. |
20221 | Precision is only one of the virtues of a good definition [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: Precision is but one virtue of a definition, one that must be balanced against simplicity, elegance, conciseness, theoretical illumination, and practical usefulness. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], III 2.1) | |
A reaction: Illumination looks like the dream virtue for a good definition. Otherwise it is just ticked as accurate and stowed away. 'True justified belief' is a very illuminating definition of knowledge - if it is right. But it's not very precise. |
20220 | Objection by counterexample is weak, because it only reveals inaccuracies in one theory [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: Objection by counterexample is the weakest sort of attack a theory can undergo. Even when the objection succeeds, it shows only that a theory fails to achieve complete accuracy. It does not distinguish among the various rival theories. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], III 2.1) | |
A reaction: Typically counterexamples are used to refute universal generalisations (i.e. by 'falsification'), but canny theorists avoid those, or slip in a qualifying clause. Counterexamples are good for exploring a theory's coverage. |
12664 | A truth-table, not inferential role, defines 'and' [Fodor] |
Full Idea: I'm inclined to think that 'and' is defined by its truth-table (and not, for example, by its 'inferential-role'). | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.7) | |
A reaction: Sounds right, on my general principle that something can only have a function if it has an intrinsic nature. The truth-table just formalises normal understanding of 'and', according to what it makes true. |
12648 | Names in thought afford a primitive way to bring John before the mind [Fodor] |
Full Idea: Names in thought (in contrast to, say, descriptions in thought) afford a primitive way of bringing John before the mind. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.3 App) | |
A reaction: I think the 'file' account of concepts which Fodor has now latched onto gives a wonderful account of names. They are simple if you haven't opened the file yet (like 'Louis', in Evans's example). |
12650 | 'Paderewski' has two names in mentalese, for his pianist file and his politician file [Fodor] |
Full Idea: Paderewski (as pianist and as politician) has two names in Mentalese. If you think there are two Paderewskis, it's important that what you get when you retrieve the pianist file differs from the politician file. You can then merge the two files. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.3 App) | |
A reaction: The same will apply to 'Hespherus' and 'Phosphorus'. We can re-separate the 'morning star' and 'evening star' files if we wish to discuss ancient Egyptian attitudes to such things. I love this idea of Fodor's. Explanations flow from it. |
12656 | P-and-Q gets its truth from the truth of P and truth of Q, but consistency isn't like that [Fodor] |
Full Idea: The truth of P-and-Q is (roughly) a function of the truth of P and the truth of Q; but the consistency of P&Q isn't a function of the consistency of P and the consistency of Q. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.4.5 n33) | |
A reaction: This is a nice deep issue. Fodor is interested in artificial intelligence at this point, but I am interested in the notion of coherence, as found in good justifications. Even consistency isn't elementary logic, never mind coherence. |
7566 | The Identity of Indiscernibles is really the same as the verification principle [Jolley] |
Full Idea: Various writers have noted that the Identity of Indiscernibles is really tantamount to the verification principle. | |
From: Nicholas Jolley (Leibniz [2005], Ch.3) | |
A reaction: Both principles are false, because they are the classic confusion of epistemology and ontology. The fact that you cannot 'discern' a difference between two things doesn't mean that there is no difference. Things beyond verification can still be discussed. |
12653 | There's statistical, logical, nomological, conceptual and metaphysical possibility [Fodor] |
Full Idea: Statistically, logically, nomologically, conceptually, and metaphysically possible. That's all the kinds of possibility there are this week, but feel free to add others. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.4.3) | |
A reaction: There's also epistemic possibility (possibility 'for all I know'), but I suppose that isn't the real thing. How about 'imaginative possibility' (possibility 'as far as I can imagine')? |
20188 | Modern epistemology is too atomistic, and neglects understanding [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: There are complaints that contemporary epistemology is too atomistic, and that the value of understanding has been neglected. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], I 2) | |
A reaction: This is because of the excessive influence of logic in contemporary analytic philosophy, which has to reduce knowledge to K(Fa), rather than placing it in a human context. |
20223 | Epistemology is excessively atomic, by focusing on justification instead of understanding [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: The present obsession with justification and the neglect of understanding has resulted in a feature of epistemology already criticised by several epistemologists: its atomism. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], III 2.2) | |
A reaction: All analytic philosophy has become excessively atomic, because it relies too heavily on logic for its grounding and rigour. There are other sorts of rigour, such as AI, peer review, programming. Or rigour is an idle dream. |
20217 | Truth is valuable, but someone knowing the truth is more valuable [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: Of course we value the truth, but the value we place on knowledge is more than the value of the truth we thereby acquire. …It also involves a valuabe relation between the knower and the truth. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], III 1) | |
A reaction: Hard to assess this. I take truth to be a successful relationship between a mind and a fact. Knowledge needs something extra, to avoid lucky true beliefs. Does a truth acquire greater and greater value as more people come to know it? Doubtful. |
12651 | Some beliefs are only inferred when needed, like 'Shakespeare had not telephone' [Fodor] |
Full Idea: Maybe some of your beliefs are inferred 'online' from what you have in your files, along with your inferential rules. 'Shakespeare didn't have a telephone' is a classic example, which we infer if the occasion arises. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.3 App) | |
A reaction: A highly persuasive example. There seem to be a huge swathe of blatantly obvious beliefs (especially negative ones) which may never cross our minds during an entire lifetime, but to which we certainly subscribe. |
20191 | Some beliefs are fairly voluntary, and others are not at all so [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: My position is that beliefs, like acts, arrange themselves on a continuum of degrees of voluntariness, ranging from quite a bit to none at all. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], I 4.2) | |
A reaction: I'm sure we have no idea how we came to hold many of our beliefs, and if we see a cat, nothing seems to intervene between the seeing and the believing. But if you adopt a religion, believing its full creed is a big subsequent effort. |
20222 | Knowledge either aims at a quantity of truths, or a quality of understanding of truths [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: Getting knowledge can be a matter either of reaching more truths or of gaining understanding of truths already believed. So it may be a way of increasing either the quality of true belief (cognitive contact with reality) or the quantity. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], III 2.1) | |
A reaction: I'm not sure how one would increase understanding of currently believed truths if it didn't involve adding some new truths to the collection. There is only the discovery of connections or structures, but those are new facts. |
12628 | Knowing that must come before knowing how [Fodor] |
Full Idea: Thought about the world is prior to thought about how to change the world. Accordingly, knowing that is prior to knowing how. Descartes was right, and Ryle was wrong. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: The classical example is knowing how to ride a bicycle, when few people can explain what is involved. Clearly you need quite a bit of propositional knowledge before you step on a bike. How does Fodor's claim work for animals? |
12625 | Pragmatism is the worst idea ever [Fodor] |
Full Idea: Pragmatism is perhaps the worst idea that philosophy ever had. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: Not an argument, but an interesting sign of the times. Most major modern American philosophers, such as Quine, seem to fit some loose label of 'pragmatist'. I always smell a feeble relativism, and a refusal to face the interesting questions. |
20225 | For internalists Gettier situations are where internally it is fine, but there is an external mishap [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: In internalist theories the grounds for justification are accessible to the believer, and Gettier problems arise when there is nothing wrong with the internally accessible aspects of the situation, but there is a mishap inaccessible to the believer. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], III 3.1) | |
A reaction: I'm sure we could construct an internal mishap which the believer was unaware of, such as two confusions of the meanings of words cancelling one another out. |
20226 | Gettier problems are always possible if justification and truth are not closely linked [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: As long as the concept of knowledge closely connects the justification component and the truth component but permits some degree of independence between them, justified true belief will never be sufficient for knowledge. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], III 3.1) | |
A reaction: Out of context this sounds like an advertisement for externalism. Or maybe it just says we have to live with Gettier threats. Zagzebski has other strategies. |
20228 | We avoid the Gettier problem if the support for the belief entails its truth [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: The way to avoid the Gettier problem is to define knowledge in such a way that truth is entailed by the other component(s) of the definition. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], III 3.1) | |
A reaction: Thus she defines virtuous justification as being successful, as virtues tend to be. This smacks of cheating. Surely we can be defeated in a virtuous way? If the truth is entailed then of course Gettier can be sent packing. |
20227 | Gettier cases arise when good luck cancels out bad luck [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: The procedure for generating Gettier cases involves 'double luck': an instance of good luck cancels out an instance of bad luck. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], III 3.2) | |
A reaction: You can end up with the right answer in arithmetic if you make two mistakes rather than one. I'm picturing a life of one blundering error after another, which to an outsider seems to be going serenely well. |
20194 | Intellectual virtues are forms of moral virtue [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: I argue that intellectual virtues are forms of moral virtue. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], II Intro) | |
A reaction: This contrasts with Sosa, who seems to think intellectual virtues are just the most efficient ways of reaching the truth. I like Zabzebski's approach a lot, though we are in a very small minority. I love her book. We have epistemic and moral duties. |
20206 | Intellectual and moral prejudice are the same vice (and there are other examples) [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: Maybe the intellectual and the moral forms of prejudice are the same vice, and this may also be true of other traits with shared names, such as humility, autonomy, integrity, perseverance, courage and trustworthiness. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], II 3.1) | |
A reaction: I find this claim very persuasive. The virtue of 'integrity' rather obviously embraces groups of both intellectually and morally desirable traits. |
20208 | We can name at least thirteen intellectual vices [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: Some examples of intellectual vices: pride, negligence, idleness, cowardice, conformity, carelessness, rigidity, prejudice, wishful thinking, closed-mindedness, insensitivity to detail, obtuseness (in seeing relevance), and lack of thoroughness. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], II 3.1) | |
A reaction: There are thousands of vices for which we don't have names, like thinking about football when you should be doing metaphysics. The other way round is also a vice too, because football needs concentration. Discontent with your chair is bad too. |
20210 | A reliable process is no use without the virtues to make use of them [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: It is not enough that a process is reliable; a person will not reliably use such a process without certain virtues. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], II 4.1.2) | |
A reaction: This is a point against Sosa's reliabilist account of virtues. Of course, all theories of epistemic justification (or of morality) will fail if people can't be bothered to implement them. |
20215 | A justified belief emulates the understanding and beliefs of an intellectually virtuous person [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: A justified belief is what a person who is motivated by intellectual virtue, and who has the understanding of his cognitive situation a virtuous person would have, might believe in like circumstances. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], II 6.1) | |
A reaction: This is a whole-hearted definition of justification in terms of a theory of intellectual virtues. Presumably this would allow robots to have justified beliefs, if they managed to behave the way intellectually virtuous persons would behave. |
20187 | Epistemic perfection for reliabilism is a truth-producing machine [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: Just as a utility-calculating machine would be the ideal moral agent according to utilitarianism, a truth-producing machine would be the ideal epistemic agent according to reliabilism, | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], I 1.2) | |
A reaction: Love this one! For consequentialists a successful robot is morally superior to an average human being. The reliabilist dream is just something that churns out truths. But what is the role of these truths in subsequent life? |
12636 | Mental states have causal powers [Fodor] |
Full Idea: Mental states have causal powers. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.2.3) | |
A reaction: I quote this because it gives you the link between a general account of causal powers as basic to reality, and an active account of what the mind is. It has to be a key link in a decent modern unified account of the world. See Idea 12638. |
12661 | The different types of resemblance don't resemble one another [Fodor] |
Full Idea: The ways in which different kinds of thing are similar to one another aren't, in general, similar to one another. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.5.4) | |
A reaction: Nice, but I think one would say that they lack similarity at the level of primary thought, but have obvious similarity (as concept-connectors) at the level of meta-thought. |
20218 | The self is known as much by its knowledge as by its action [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: It seems to me that the concept of the self is constituted as much by what we know as by what we do. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], III 1) | |
A reaction: People take pride in what they know, which indicates that it is of central importance to a person's nature. Hard to evaluate ideas such as this. |
12632 | In the Representational view, concepts play the key linking role [Fodor] |
Full Idea: If the Representational Theory of Mind is true, then concepts are constituents of beliefs, the units of semantic evaluation, a locus of causal interactions among mental representations, and formulas in Mentalese. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.2.1) | |
A reaction: I like this aspect of the theory, but then I can't really think of a theory about how the mind works that doesn't make concepts central to it. |
12624 | Only the labels of nodes have semantic content in connectionism, and they play no role [Fodor] |
Full Idea: Connectionism has no truck with mental representations; on the one hand, only the node labels in 'neural networks' have semantic content, and, on the other, the node labels play no role in mental processes, in standard formulations. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: Connectionism must have some truth in it, yet mere connections can't do the full job. The difficulty is that nothing else seems to do the 'full job' either. Fodor cites productivity, systematicity, compositionality, logical form as the problems. |
12641 | Connectionism gives no account of how constituents make complex concepts [Fodor] |
Full Idea: Connectionist architectures provide no counterpart to the relation between a complex concept and its constituents. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.3.3 n29) | |
A reaction: This is the compositionality of thought, upon which Fodor is so insistent. Not that a theory of how the mind is built up from the body is quite likely to give you a theory about what thinking is. I try to keep them separate, which may be wrong. |
12640 | Associative thinking avoids syntax, but can't preserve sense, reference or truth [Fodor] |
Full Idea: The virtue of associative theories of thinking is that they don't require thoughts to have syntactic structure. But they can't be right, since association doesn't preserve either sense or reference (to say nothing of truth). | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.3.3 n28) | |
A reaction: This is using the empiricist idea that knowledge is built from mechanical associations to give a complete account of what thinking is. Fodor resolutely opposes it. |
20205 | The feeling accompanying curiosity is neither pleasant nor painful [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: Most feelings are experienced as pleasant or painful, but it is not evident that they all are; curiosity may be one that is not. [note: 'curiosity' may not be the name of a feeling, but a feeling typically accompanies it] | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], II 3.1) | |
A reaction: If a machine generates a sliding scale from pain to pleasure, is there a neutral feeling at the midpoint, or does all feeling briefly vanish there? Not sure. |
12643 | Ambiguities in English are the classic reason for claiming that we don't think in English [Fodor] |
Full Idea: That there are ambiguities in English is the classic reason for claiming that we don't think in English. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.3.5) | |
A reaction: I have always been impressed by this simple observation, which is my main reason for believing in propositions (as brain events). 'Propositions' may just be useful chunks of mentalese. |
12647 | Mental representations name things in the world, but also files in our memory [Fodor] |
Full Idea: Mental representations can serve both as names for things in the world and as names of files in the memory. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.3 App) | |
A reaction: I am laughed at for liking this idea (given the present files of ideas before you), but I think this it is very powerful. Chicken before egg. I was drawn to databases precisely because they seemed to map how the mind worked. |
12649 | We think in file names [Fodor] |
Full Idea: We think in file names. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.3 App) | |
A reaction: This is Fodor's new view. He cites Treisman and Schmidt (1982) for raising it, and Pylyshyn (2003) for discussing it. I love it. It exactly fits my introspective view of how I think, and I think it would fit animals. It might not fit some other people! |
12655 | Frame Problem: how to eliminate most beliefs as irrelevant, without searching them? [Fodor] |
Full Idea: The frame problem is, precisely: How does one know that none of one's beliefs about Jupiter are germane to the current question, without having to recall and search one's beliefs about Jupiter? | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.4.4) | |
A reaction: Presumably good chess-playing computers have made some progress with this problem. The only answer, as far as I can see, is that brains have a lot in common with relational databases. The mind is structured around a relevance-pattern. |
12630 | If concept content is reference, then my Twin and I are referring to the same stuff [Fodor] |
Full Idea: If the content of a concept is its reference, we can stop worrying about Twin Earth. If there are no senses, there is no question of whether my twin and I have the same WATER concept. Our WATER concepts aren't even coextensive. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: This seems like a neat solution. So do 'tap water' and 'holy water' have the same content to a Christian and non-Christian, when they co-refer to the contents of the font? |
12658 | Nobody knows how concepts are acquired [Fodor] |
Full Idea: I don't know how concepts are acquired. Nor do you. Nor does anybody else. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.5.4) | |
A reaction: This comes in the context of quietly modifying his earlier claim that concepts weren't acquired, because they were largely innate. Presumably we are allowed to have theories of concept acquisition? I quite like abstractionism. |
12662 | We have an innate capacity to form a concept, once we have grasped the stereotype [Fodor] |
Full Idea: What's learned are stereotypes. What's innate is the disposition to grasp such and such a concept (to lock to such a property) in consequence of having learned such and such a stereotype. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.5.4) | |
A reaction: This is the late Fodor much ameliorated view, after a lot of scoffing about the idea of the tin-opener being innate in all of us. There may be a suspicion of circularity here, if we ask what mental abilities are needed to form a stereotype. |
12635 | Having a concept isn't a pragmatic matter, but being able to think about the concept [Fodor] |
Full Idea: Pragmatism about concepts really is dead, and the only alternative about concept possession is Cartesianism. That is, it's the thesis that having concept C is being able to think about Cs (as such). | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.2.2) | |
A reaction: I like this. It is very hard to pick out from Fodor the bits where he is clearly right, but this seems to be one of them. I don't like the pragmatic or Wittgensteinian line that having concepts is all about abilities and uses (like sorting or inferring). |
12652 | Concepts have two sides; they are files that face thought, and also face subject-matter [Fodor] |
Full Idea: We think in file names, and file names are Janus-faced: one face turned towards thinking and the other face turned towards what is thought about. I do think that is rather satisfactory. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.3 App) | |
A reaction: So do I. I do hope the philosophical community take up this idea (which they probably won't, simply because Fodor is in the late stages of his career!). |
12626 | Cartesians put concept individuation before concept possession [Fodor] |
Full Idea: Cartesians think that concept individuation is prior, in order of analysis, to concept possession. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.12) | |
A reaction: Peacocke is someone who seems to put possession first, to the point where individuation is thereby achieved. The background influence there is Wittgenstein. I think I am more with Fodor, that concepts are entities, which need to be understood. |
12637 | Frege's puzzles suggest to many that concepts have sense as well as reference [Fodor] |
Full Idea: Philosophers in droves have held that Frege cases are convincing arguments that concepts have not just referents but also senses. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.3.2) | |
A reaction: [Frege cases are puzzles where simple reference seems to lead to confusion] I take the Fregean approach to concepts (of Dummett, Peacocke) to attempt to give an account of the sense, once the reference is decided. Idea 12629 gives Fodor's view. |
12638 | If concepts have sense, we can't see the connection to their causal powers [Fodor] |
Full Idea: How are we to understand the connection between the identity of a concept and its causal powers if concepts are (or have) senses? Answer: I haven't a clue. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.3.3) | |
A reaction: This seems to be the key to Fodor's attack on Peacocke and other Fregeans - that while they pay lip-service to the project of naturalising thought, they are actually committing us to some sort of neo-platonism, by losing the causal links. See Idea 12636. |
12639 | Belief in 'senses' may explain intentionality, but not mental processes [Fodor] |
Full Idea: Supposing the mind to be conversant with senses can, maybe, provide for a theory of the intentionality of mental states; but it seems to shed no light at all on the nature of mental processes (i.e. of mental state transitions). | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.3.3) | |
A reaction: I would track this back to Frege's hostility to 'psychologism'. That is, Fregeans don't care about Fodor's problem, because all their accounts (of mathematics, of logic, and of concepts) treat the subject-matter as self-contained sui generis. |
12654 | You can't think 'brown dog' without thinking 'brown' and 'dog' [Fodor] |
Full Idea: You can think 'brown dog' without thinking 'cat', but you can't think 'brown dog' without thinking 'brown' and 'dog'. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.4.3) | |
A reaction: Fodor is talking about concepts in thought, not about words. The claim is that such concepts have to be compositional, and it is hard to disagree. |
12659 | Maybe stereotypes are a stage in concept acquisition (rather than a by-product) [Fodor] |
Full Idea: We needn't say that learning a stereotype is just a by-product of acquiring the concept; it could rather be a stage in concept acquisition. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.5.4) | |
A reaction: He rejects stereotypes because they don't give concepts the necessary compositionality in thought. But this idea would mean that children were incapable of compositionality until they had transcended the primitive stereotype stage. |
12660 | One stereotype might be a paradigm for two difference concepts [Fodor] |
Full Idea: The same stereotype can give difference concepts; chickens are paradigmatic instances both of FOOD and of BARNYARD FOWL. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.5.4) | |
A reaction: And I'm guessing that lots of concepts could have two equally plausible stereotypes, even within a single mind. Stereotypes are interesting, but they don't seem to be the key to our understanding of concepts. |
12629 | For the referential view of thought, the content of a concept is just its reference [Fodor] |
Full Idea: Pure referentialism is the kind of semantics RTM requires (reference is the only primitive mind-world semantic property). ...So the content of a concept is its reference. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: This seems to say that the meaning of a concept is (typically) a physical object, which seems to be the 'Fido'-Fido view of meaning. It seems to me to be a category mistake to say that a meaning can be a cat. |
12631 | Compositionality requires that concepts be atomic [Fodor] |
Full Idea: Atomism must be right about the individuation of concepts because compositionality demands it. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch1) | |
A reaction: I suppose this seems right, though Fodor's own example of 'pet fish' is interesting. What is supposed to happen when you take a concept like 'pet' and put it with 'fish', given that both components shift their atomic (?) meaning in the process? |
12657 | Abstractionism claims that instances provide criteria for what is shared [Fodor] |
Full Idea: In the idea of learning concepts by 'abstraction', experiences of the instances provide evidence about which of the shared properties of things in a concept's extension are 'criterial' for being in the concept's extension. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.5.2 n6) | |
A reaction: Fodor is fairly sceptical of this approach, and his doubts are seen in the scare-quotes around 'criterial'. He is defending the idea that only a certain degree of innateness in the concepts can get such a procedure off the ground. |
12634 | 'Inferential-role semantics' says meaning is determined by role in inference [Fodor] |
Full Idea: 'Inferential-role semantics' claims that the meaning of a word (/the content of a concept) is determined by its role in inference. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.2.1.2 n14) | |
A reaction: Fodor is deeply opposed to this view. At first blush it sounds wrong to me, since there seems to be plenty of thought that can go on before inference takes place. Daydreamy speculation, for example. |
12642 | Co-referring terms differ if they have different causal powers [Fodor] |
Full Idea: The representation of 'morning star' must be different from 'evening star' because their tokens differ in their causal powers. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.3.3) | |
A reaction: This is Fodor trying to avoid the standard Fregean move of proposing that there are 'senses' as well as references. See Idea 12629. If these two terms have the same extension, they are the same concept? They 'seem' to have two referents. |
12663 | We refer to individuals and to properties, and we use singular terms and predicates [Fodor] |
Full Idea: I assume that there are two kinds of reference: reference to individuals and to properties. This means, from the syntactic point of view, that the vehicles of reference are exhaustively singular terms and predicates. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.7) | |
A reaction: The immediate possibility that comes to mind is plural quantification. See George Boolos, who confidently says that he can refer to 'some Cheerios' in his breakfast bowl, and communicate very well. He then looks to formalise such talk. |
12645 | Semantics (esp. referential semantics) allows inferences from utterances to the world [Fodor] |
Full Idea: All you need for inferring from John's utterance to the world is the sort of thing that a semantics (i.e. referential semantics) provides. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.3.5) | |
A reaction: Fodor is very good at saying nice simple things like that. But it is not enough to infer what objects are being discussed. All the hard cases must be covered (denials of existence, reference to non-existence, intentional contexts, modal claims). |
12646 | Semantics relates to the world, so it is never just psychological [Fodor] |
Full Idea: Semantics is about constitutive relations between representations and the world. There is, as a matter of principle, no such thing as a psychological theory of meaning. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.3.5) | |
A reaction: The second sentence is in capital letters, but I am still not convinced. The classic difficulty seems to be that you have to use language to pick out the things in the world that are being referred to. Of course, at some point you just see the objects. |
20202 | Motives involve desires, but also how the desires connect to our aims [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: A motive does have an aspect of desire, but it includes something about why a state of affairs is desired, and that includes something about the way my emotions are tied to my aim. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], II 2.6) | |
A reaction: It is standard usage that a 'motive' involves some movement towards achieving the desire, and not merely having the desire. I'd quite like to stand on top of Everest, but have absolutely no motivation to try to achieve it. |
12627 | Before you can plan action, you must decide on the truth of your estimate of success [Fodor] |
Full Idea: You can't think a plan of action unless you can think how the world would be if the action were to succeed; and thinking the world will be such and such if all goes well is thinking the kind of thing that can be true or false. | |
From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: This is part of Fodor's attack on the pragmatic view of concepts (that they should be fully understood in terms of action, rather than of thought). I take Fodor to be blatantly correct. This is counterfactual thinking. |
20216 | Modern moral theory concerns settling conflicts, rather than human fulfilment [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: Modern ethics generally considers morality much less a system for fulfilling human nature than a set of principles for dealing with individuals in conflict. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], II 7) | |
A reaction: Historically I associate this move with Hugo Grotius around 1620. He was a great legalist, and eudaimonist virtue ethics gradually turned into jurisprudence. The Enlightenment sought rules for resolving dilemmas. Liberalism makes fulfilment private. |
20193 | Moral luck means our praise and blame may exceed our control or awareness [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: Because of moral luck, the realm of the morally praiseworthy / blameworthy is not indisputably within one's voluntary control or accessible to one's consciousness. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], I 4.2) | |
A reaction: [She particularly cites Thomas Nagel for this] It is a fact that we will be blamed (more strongly) when we have moral bad luck, but the question is whether we should be. It seems harsh, but you can't punish someone as if they had had bad luck. |
20199 | Nowadays we doubt the Greek view that the flourishing of individuals and communities are linked [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: Modern moral philosophers have been considerably more skeptical than were the ancient Greeks about the close association between the flourishing of the individual and that of the community. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], II 2.2) | |
A reaction: I presume this is not just a change in fashion, but a reflection of how different the two societies are. In a close community with almost no privacy, flourishing individuals are good citizens. In the isolations of modern liberalism they may be irrelevant. |
20207 | Every moral virtue requires a degree of intelligence [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: Being reasonably intelligent within a certain area of life is part of having almost any moral virtue. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], II 3.1) | |
A reaction: The fact that this bars persons of very limited intelligence from acquiring the Aristotelian virtues is one of the attractions of the Christian enjoinder to merely achieve 'love'. Anyone can have a warm heart. So is virtue elitist? |
20196 | Virtue theory is hopeless if there is no core of agreed universal virtues [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: An analysis of virtue is hopeless unless we can assume that most of a selected list of traits count as virtues, in a way not strictly culture. ...These would include wisdom, courage, benevolence, justice, honesty, loyalty, integrity, and generosity. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], II 2.1) | |
A reaction: This requirement needs there to be a single core to human nature, right across the species. If we are infinitely flexible (as existentialists imply) then the virtues will have matching flexibility, and so will be parochial and excessively relative. |
20200 | A virtue must always have a corresponding vice [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: It is important for the nature of virtue that it have a corresponding vice (or two, in the doctrine of the mean). Claustrophobia is not a vice not only because it is involuntary, but also because there is no corresponding virtue. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], II 2.3) | |
A reaction: Presumably attaining a virtue is an achievement, so we would expect a label for failure in the same field of endeavour. The failure is not purely negative, because bad things ensue if the virtue is not present. |
20201 | Eight marks distingush skills from virtues [Zagzebski, by PG] |
Full Idea: The difference between skills and virtues is that virtues must be enacted, are always desirable, can't be forgotten, and can be simulated, whereas skills are very specific, involve a technique, lack contraries, and lack intrinsic value. | |
From: report of Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], II 2.4) by PG - Db (ideas) | |
A reaction: [my summary of her II 2.4 discussion of the differences] She observes that Aristotle made insufficient effort to distinguish the two. It may be obscure to say that virtues go 'deeper' than skills, but we all know what is meant. 'Skills serve virtues'. |
20203 | Virtues are deep acquired excellences of persons, which successfully attain desire ends [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: A virtue can be defined as 'a deep and enduring acquired excellence of a person, involving a characteristic motivation to produce a certain desired end and reliable success in bringing about that end'. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], II 2.7) | |
A reaction: She puts this in bold, and it is the culminating definition of a long discussion. It rather obviously fails to say anything about the nature of the end that is desired. Learning the telephone book off by heart seems to fit the definition. |
20214 | Virtue theory can have lots of rules, as long as they are grounded in virtues and in facts [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: A pure virtue theory can have as many rules as you like as long as they are understood as grounded in the virtuous motivations and understanding of the nonmoral facts that virtuous agents possess. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], II 6.1) | |
A reaction: It is important, I think, to see that a virtue theorist does not have to be a particularist. |
20213 | We need phronesis to coordinate our virtues [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: We need phronesis (practical wisdom) to coordinate the various virtues into a single line of action or line of thought leading up to an act or to a belief. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], II 5.2) | |
A reaction: If I have a conflicting virtue and vice in a single situation, something must make sure that the virtue dominates. That sounds more like Kant's 'good will' than like phronesis. |
20209 | For the virtue of honesty you must be careful with the truth, and not just speak truly [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: It is not sufficient for honesty that a person tells whatever she happens to believe is the truth. An honest person is careful with the truth. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], II 3.2) | |
A reaction: Not sure about that. It matches what Aristotle says about courage, which also needs practical reason [phronesis]. But being sensitive and careful with truth seems to need other virtues. If total honesty is not a virtue, then is honesty a virtue at all? |
20197 | The courage of an evil person is still a quality worth having [Zagzebski] |
Full Idea: In the case of a courageous Nazi soldier, my position is that a virtue is worth having even in those cases in which it makes a person worse overall. | |
From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], II 2.2) | |
A reaction: A brave claim, which seems right. If a nasty Nazi reforms, they will at least have one good quality which can be put to constructive use. |