62 ideas
| 9331 | How do we determine which of the sentences containing a term comprise its definition? [Horwich] |
| Full Idea: How are we to determine which of the sentences containing a term comprise its definition? | |
| From: Paul Horwich (Stipulation, Meaning and Apriority [2000], §2) | |
| A reaction: Nice question. If I say 'philosophy is the love of wisdom' and 'philosophy bores me', why should one be part of its definition and the other not? What if I stipulated that the second one is part of my definition, and the first one isn't? |
| 13634 | Satisfaction is 'truth in a model', which is a model of 'truth' [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: In a sense, satisfaction is the notion of 'truth in a model', and (as Hodes 1984 elegantly puts it) 'truth in a model' is a model of 'truth'. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 1.1) | |
| A reaction: So we can say that Tarski doesn't offer a definition of truth itself, but replaces it with a 'model' of truth. |
| 13643 | Aristotelian logic is complete [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Aristotelian logic is complete. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 2.5) | |
| A reaction: [He cites Corcoran 1972] |
| 13651 | A set is 'transitive' if contains every member of each of its members [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: If, for every b∈d, a∈b entails that a∈d, the d is said to be 'transitive'. In other words, d is transitive if it contains every member of each of its members. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 4.2) | |
| A reaction: The alternative would be that the members of the set are subsets, but the members of those subsets are not themselves members of the higher-level set. |
| 13647 | Choice is essential for proving downward Löwenheim-Skolem [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The axiom of choice is essential for proving the downward Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 4.1) |
| 13631 | Are sets part of logic, or part of mathematics? [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Is there a notion of set in the jurisdiction of logic, or does it belong to mathematics proper? | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], Pref) | |
| A reaction: It immediately strikes me that they might be neither. I don't see that relations between well-defined groups of things must involve number, and I don't see that mapping the relations must intrinsically involve logical consequence or inference. |
| 13654 | It is central to the iterative conception that membership is well-founded, with no infinite descending chains [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: In set theory it is central to the iterative conception that the membership relation is well-founded, ...which means there are no infinite descending chains from any relation. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 5.1.4) |
| 13640 | Russell's paradox shows that there are classes which are not iterative sets [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The argument behind Russell's paradox shows that in set theory there are logical sets (i.e. classes) that are not iterative sets. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 1.3) | |
| A reaction: In his preface, Shapiro expresses doubts about the idea of a 'logical set'. Hence the theorists like the iterative hierarchy because it is well-founded and under control, not because it is comprehensive in scope. See all of pp.19-20. |
| 13666 | Iterative sets are not Boolean; the complement of an iterative set is not an iterative sets [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Iterative sets do not exhibit a Boolean structure, because the complement of an iterative set is not itself an iterative set. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 7.1) |
| 13653 | 'Well-ordering' of a set is an irreflexive, transitive, and binary relation with a least element [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: A 'well-ordering' of a set X is an irreflexive, transitive, and binary relation on X in which every non-empty subset of X has a least element. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 5.1.3) | |
| A reaction: So there is a beginning, an ongoing sequence, and no retracing of steps. |
| 13627 | There is no 'correct' logic for natural languages [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: There is no question of finding the 'correct' or 'true' logic underlying a part of natural language. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], Pref) | |
| A reaction: One needs the context of Shapiro's defence of second-order logic to see his reasons for this. Call me romantic, but I retain faith that there is one true logic. The Kennedy Assassination problem - can't see the truth because drowning in evidence. |
| 13642 | Logic is the ideal for learning new propositions on the basis of others [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: A logic can be seen as the ideal of what may be called 'relative justification', the process of coming to know some propositions on the basis of others. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 2.3.1) | |
| A reaction: This seems to be the modern idea of logic, as opposed to identification of a set of 'logical truths' from which eternal necessities (such as mathematics) can be derived. 'Know' implies that they are true - which conclusions may not be. |
| 13668 | Bernays (1918) formulated and proved the completeness of propositional logic [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Bernays (1918) formulated and proved the completeness of propositional logic, the first precise solution as part of the Hilbert programme. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 7.2.1) |
| 13669 | Can one develop set theory first, then derive numbers, or are numbers more basic? [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: In 1910 Weyl observed that set theory seemed to presuppose natural numbers, and he regarded numbers as more fundamental than sets, as did Fraenkel. Dedekind had developed set theory independently, and used it to formulate numbers. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 7.2.2) |
| 13667 | Skolem and Gödel championed first-order, and Zermelo, Hilbert, and Bernays championed higher-order [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Skolem and Gödel were the main proponents of first-order languages. The higher-order language 'opposition' was championed by Zermelo, Hilbert, and Bernays. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 7.2) |
| 13662 | First-order logic was an afterthought in the development of modern logic [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Almost all the systems developed in the first part of the twentieth century are higher-order; first-order logic was an afterthought. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 7.1) |
| 13624 | The 'triumph' of first-order logic may be related to logicism and the Hilbert programme, which failed [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The 'triumph' of first-order logic may be related to the remnants of failed foundationalist programmes early this century - logicism and the Hilbert programme. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], Pref) | |
| A reaction: Being complete must also be one of its attractions, and Quine seems to like it because of its minimal ontological commitment. |
| 13660 | Maybe compactness, semantic effectiveness, and the Löwenheim-Skolem properties are desirable [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Tharp (1975) suggested that compactness, semantic effectiveness, and the Löwenheim-Skolem properties are consequences of features one would want a logic to have. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 6.5) | |
| A reaction: I like this proposal, though Shapiro is strongly against. We keep extending our logic so that we can prove new things, but why should we assume that we can prove everything? That's just what Gödel suggests that we should give up on. |
| 13673 | The notion of finitude is actually built into first-order languages [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The notion of finitude is explicitly 'built in' to the systems of first-order languages in one way or another. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 9.1) | |
| A reaction: Personally I am inclined to think that they are none the worse for that. No one had even thought of all these lovely infinities before 1870, and now we are supposed to change our logic (our actual logic!) to accommodate them. Cf quantum logic. |
| 15944 | Second-order logic is better than set theory, since it only adds relations and operations, and nothing else [Shapiro, by Lavine] |
| Full Idea: Shapiro preferred second-order logic to set theory because second-order logic refers only to the relations and operations in a domain, and not to the other things that set-theory brings with it - other domains, higher-order relations, and so forth. | |
| From: report of Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991]) by Shaughan Lavine - Understanding the Infinite VII.4 |
| 13629 | Broad standard semantics, or Henkin semantics with a subclass, or many-sorted first-order semantics? [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Three systems of semantics for second-order languages: 'standard semantics' (variables cover all relations and functions), 'Henkin semantics' (relations and functions are a subclass) and 'first-order semantics' (many-sorted domains for variable-types). | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], Pref) | |
| A reaction: [my summary] |
| 13650 | Henkin semantics has separate variables ranging over the relations and over the functions [Shapiro] |
|
Full Idea:
In 'Henkin' semantics, in a given model |
|
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 3.3) |
| 13645 | In standard semantics for second-order logic, a single domain fixes the ranges for the variables [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: In the standard semantics of second-order logic, by fixing a domain one thereby fixes the range of both the first-order variables and the second-order variables. There is no further 'interpreting' to be done. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 3.3) | |
| A reaction: This contrasts with 'Henkin' semantics (Idea 13650), or first-order semantics, which involve more than one domain of quantification. |
| 13649 | Completeness, Compactness and Löwenheim-Skolem fail in second-order standard semantics [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The counterparts of Completeness, Compactness and the Löwenheim-Skolem theorems all fail for second-order languages with standard semantics, but hold for Henkin or first-order semantics. Hence such logics are much like first-order logic. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 4.1) | |
| A reaction: Shapiro votes for the standard semantics, because he wants the greater expressive power, especially for the characterization of infinite structures. |
| 13626 | Semantic consequence is ineffective in second-order logic [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: It follows from Gödel's incompleteness theorem that the semantic consequence relation of second-order logic is not effective. For example, the set of logical truths of any second-order logic is not recursively enumerable. It is not even arithmetic. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], Pref) | |
| A reaction: I don't fully understand this, but it sounds rather major, and a good reason to avoid second-order logic (despite Shapiro's proselytising). See Peter Smith on 'effectively enumerable'. |
| 13637 | If a logic is incomplete, its semantic consequence relation is not effective [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Second-order logic is inherently incomplete, so its semantic consequence relation is not effective. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 1.2.1) |
| 13632 | Finding the logical form of a sentence is difficult, and there are no criteria of correctness [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: It is sometimes difficult to find a formula that is a suitable counterpart of a particular sentence of natural language, and there is no acclaimed criterion for what counts as a good, or even acceptable, 'translation'. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 1.1) |
| 13674 | We might reduce ontology by using truth of sentences and terms, instead of using objects satisfying models [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The main role of substitutional semantics is to reduce ontology. As an alternative to model-theoretic semantics for formal languages, the idea is to replace the 'satisfaction' relation of formulas (by objects) with the 'truth' of sentences (using terms). | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 9.1.4) | |
| A reaction: I find this very appealing, and Ruth Barcan Marcus is the person to look at. My intuition is that logic should have no ontology at all, as it is just about how inference works, not about how things are. Shapiro offers a compromise. |
| 13633 | 'Satisfaction' is a function from models, assignments, and formulas to {true,false} [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The 'satisfaction' relation may be thought of as a function from models, assignments, and formulas to the truth values {true,false}. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 1.1) | |
| A reaction: This at least makes clear that satisfaction is not the same as truth. Now you have to understand how Tarski can define truth in terms of satisfaction. |
| 13644 | Semantics for models uses set-theory [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Typically, model-theoretic semantics is formulated in set theory. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 2.5.1) |
| 13636 | An axiomatization is 'categorical' if its models are isomorphic, so there is really only one interpretation [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: An axiomatization is 'categorical' if all its models are isomorphic to one another; ..hence it has 'essentially only one' interpretation [Veblen 1904]. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 1.2.1) |
| 13670 | Categoricity can't be reached in a first-order language [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Categoricity cannot be attained in a first-order language. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 7.3) |
| 13658 | Downward Löwenheim-Skolem: each satisfiable countable set always has countable models [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: A language has the Downward Löwenheim-Skolem property if each satisfiable countable set of sentences has a model whose domain is at most countable. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 6.5) | |
| A reaction: This means you can't employ an infinite model to represent a fact about a countable set. |
| 13659 | Upward Löwenheim-Skolem: each infinite model has infinite models of all sizes [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: A language has the Upward Löwenheim-Skolem property if for each set of sentences whose model has an infinite domain, then it has a model at least as big as each infinite cardinal. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 6.5) | |
| A reaction: This means you can't have a countable model to represent a fact about infinite sets. |
| 13648 | The Löwenheim-Skolem theorems show an explosion of infinite models, so 1st-order is useless for infinity [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The Löwenheim-Skolem theorems mean that no first-order theory with an infinite model is categorical. If Γ has an infinite model, then it has a model of every infinite cardinality. So first-order languages cannot characterize infinite structures. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 4.1) | |
| A reaction: So much of the debate about different logics hinges on characterizing 'infinite structures' - whatever they are! Shapiro is a leading structuralist in mathematics, so he wants second-order logic to help with his project. |
| 13675 | Substitutional semantics only has countably many terms, so Upward Löwenheim-Skolem trivially fails [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The Upward Löwenheim-Skolem theorem fails (trivially) with substitutional semantics. If there are only countably many terms of the language, then there are no uncountable substitution models. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 9.1.4) | |
| A reaction: Better and better. See Idea 13674. Why postulate more objects than you can possibly name? I'm even suspicious of all real numbers, because you can't properly define them in finite terms. Shapiro objects that the uncountable can't be characterized. |
| 13635 | 'Weakly sound' if every theorem is a logical truth; 'sound' if every deduction is a semantic consequence [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: A logic is 'weakly sound' if every theorem is a logical truth, and 'strongly sound', or simply 'sound', if every deduction from Γ is a semantic consequence of Γ. Soundness indicates that the deductive system is faithful to the semantics. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 1.1) | |
| A reaction: Similarly, 'weakly complete' is when every logical truth is a theorem. |
| 13628 | We can live well without completeness in logic [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: We can live without completeness in logic, and live well. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], Pref) | |
| A reaction: This is the kind of heady suggestion that American philosophers love to make. Sounds OK to me, though. Our ability to draw good inferences should be expected to outrun our ability to actually prove them. Completeness is for wimps. |
| 13630 | Non-compactness is a strength of second-order logic, enabling characterisation of infinite structures [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: It is sometimes said that non-compactness is a defect of second-order logic, but it is a consequence of a crucial strength - its ability to give categorical characterisations of infinite structures. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], Pref) | |
| A reaction: The dispute between fans of first- and second-order may hinge on their attitude to the infinite. I note that Skolem, who was not keen on the infinite, stuck to first-order. Should we launch a new Skolemite Crusade? |
| 13646 | Compactness is derived from soundness and completeness [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Compactness is a corollary of soundness and completeness. If Γ is not satisfiable, then, by completeness, Γ is not consistent. But the deductions contain only finite premises. So a finite subset shows the inconsistency. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 4.1) | |
| A reaction: [this is abbreviated, but a proof of compactness] Since all worthwhile logics are sound, this effectively means that completeness entails compactness. |
| 13661 | A language is 'semantically effective' if its logical truths are recursively enumerable [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: A logical language is 'semantically effective' if the collection of logically true sentences is a recursively enumerable set of strings. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 6.5) |
| 13641 | Complex numbers can be defined as reals, which are defined as rationals, then integers, then naturals [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: 'Definitions' of integers as pairs of naturals, rationals as pairs of integers, reals as Cauchy sequences of rationals, and complex numbers as pairs of reals are reductive foundations of various fields. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 2.1) | |
| A reaction: On p.30 (bottom) Shapiro objects that in the process of reduction the numbers acquire properties they didn't have before. |
| 13676 | Only higher-order languages can specify that 0,1,2,... are all the natural numbers that there are [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The main problem of characterizing the natural numbers is to state, somehow, that 0,1,2,.... are all the numbers that there are. We have seen that this can be accomplished with a higher-order language, but not in a first-order language. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 9.1.4) |
| 13677 | Natural numbers are the finite ordinals, and integers are equivalence classes of pairs of finite ordinals [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: By convention, the natural numbers are the finite ordinals, the integers are certain equivalence classes of pairs of finite ordinals, etc. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 9.3) |
| 13652 | The 'continuum' is the cardinality of the powerset of a denumerably infinite set [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The 'continuum' is the cardinality of the powerset of a denumerably infinite set. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 5.1.2) |
| 13657 | First-order arithmetic can't even represent basic number theory [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Few theorists consider first-order arithmetic to be an adequate representation of even basic number theory. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 5 n28) | |
| A reaction: This will be because of Idea 13656. Even 'basic' number theory will include all sorts of vast infinities, and that seems to be where the trouble is. |
| 13656 | Some sets of natural numbers are definable in set-theory but not in arithmetic [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: There are sets of natural numbers definable in set-theory but not in arithmetic. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 5.3.3) |
| 13664 | Logicism is distinctive in seeking a universal language, and denying that logic is a series of abstractions [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: It is claimed that aiming at a universal language for all contexts, and the thesis that logic does not involve a process of abstraction, separates the logicists from algebraists and mathematicians, and also from modern model theory. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 7.1) | |
| A reaction: I am intuitively drawn to the idea that logic is essentially the result of a series of abstractions, so this gives me a further reason not to be a logicist. Shapiro cites Goldfarb 1979 and van Heijenoort 1967. Logicists reduce abstraction to logic. |
| 13625 | Mathematics and logic have no border, and logic must involve mathematics and its ontology [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: I extend Quinean holism to logic itself; there is no sharp border between mathematics and logic, especially the logic of mathematics. One cannot expect to do logic without incorporating some mathematics and accepting at least some of its ontology. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], Pref) | |
| A reaction: I have strong sales resistance to this proposal. Mathematics may have hijacked logic and warped it for its own evil purposes, but if logic is just the study of inferences then it must be more general than to apply specifically to mathematics. |
| 13663 | Some reject formal properties if they are not defined, or defined impredicatively [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Some authors (Poincaré and Russell, for example) were disposed to reject properties that are not definable, or are definable only impredicatively. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 7.1) | |
| A reaction: I take Quine to be the culmination of this line of thought, with his general rejection of 'attributes' in logic and in metaphysics. |
| 13638 | Properties are often seen as intensional; equiangular and equilateral are different, despite identity of objects [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Properties are often taken to be intensional; equiangular and equilateral are thought to be different properties of triangles, even though any triangle is equilateral if and only if it is equiangular. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 1.3) | |
| A reaction: Many logicians seem to want to treat properties as sets of objects (red being just the set of red things), but this looks like a desperate desire to say everything in first-order logic, where only objects are available to quantify over. |
| 9333 | A priori belief is not necessarily a priori justification, or a priori knowledge [Horwich] |
| Full Idea: It is one thing to believe something a priori and another for this belief to be epistemically justified. The latter is required for a priori knowledge. | |
| From: Paul Horwich (Stipulation, Meaning and Apriority [2000], §8) | |
| A reaction: Personally I would agree with this, because I don't think anything should count as knowledge if it doesn't have supporting reasons, but fans of a priori knowledge presumably think that certain basic facts are just known. They are a priori justified. |
| 9342 | Understanding needs a priori commitment [Horwich] |
| Full Idea: Understanding is itself based on a priori commitment. | |
| From: Paul Horwich (Stipulation, Meaning and Apriority [2000], §12) | |
| A reaction: This sounds plausible, but needs more justification than Horwich offers. This is the sort of New Rationalist idea I associate with Bonjour. The crucial feature of the New lot is, I take it, their fallibilism. All understanding is provisional. |
| 9332 | Meaning is generated by a priori commitment to truth, not the other way around [Horwich] |
| Full Idea: Our a priori commitment to certain sentences is not really explained by our knowledge of a word's meaning. It is the other way around. We accept a priori that the sentences are true, and thereby provide it with meaning. | |
| From: Paul Horwich (Stipulation, Meaning and Apriority [2000], §8) | |
| A reaction: This sounds like a lovely trump card, but how on earth do you decide that a sentence is true if you don't know what it means? Personally I would take it that we are committed to the truth of a proposition, before we have a sentence for it. |
| 9341 | Meanings and concepts cannot give a priori knowledge, because they may be unacceptable [Horwich] |
| Full Idea: A priori knowledge of logic and mathematics cannot derive from meanings or concepts, because someone may possess such concepts, and yet disagree with us about them. | |
| From: Paul Horwich (Stipulation, Meaning and Apriority [2000], §12) | |
| A reaction: A good argument. The thing to focus on is not whether such ideas are a priori, but whether they are knowledge. I think we should employ the word 'intuition' for a priori candidates for knowledge, and demand further justification for actual knowledge. |
| 9334 | If we stipulate the meaning of 'number' to make Hume's Principle true, we first need Hume's Principle [Horwich] |
| Full Idea: If we stipulate the meaning of 'the number of x's' so that it makes Hume's Principle true, we must accept Hume's Principle. But a precondition for this stipulation is that Hume's Principle be accepted a priori. | |
| From: Paul Horwich (Stipulation, Meaning and Apriority [2000], §9) | |
| A reaction: Yet another modern Quinean argument that all attempts at defining things are circular. I am beginning to think that the only a priori knowledge we have is of when a group of ideas is coherent. Calling it 'intuition' might be more accurate. |
| 9339 | A priori knowledge (e.g. classical logic) may derive from the innate structure of our minds [Horwich] |
| Full Idea: One potential source of a priori knowledge is the innate structure of our minds. We might, for example, have an a priori commitment to classical logic. | |
| From: Paul Horwich (Stipulation, Meaning and Apriority [2000], §11) | |
| A reaction: Horwich points out that to be knowledge it must also say that we ought to believe it. I'm wondering whether if we divided the whole territory of the a priori up into intuitions and then coherent justifications, the whole problem would go away. |
| 22252 | Capitalism may actually be the best way to foster community [Conway,D] |
| Full Idea: Not only is there no good reason for supposing capitalism inimical to community, but there is reason to think it more conducive to community than the feasible alternatives to it. | |
| From: David Conway (Capitalism and Community [1996], I) | |
| A reaction: Conway is defending an obviously unorthodox view, while attacking the hopes of communitarians. |
| 22253 | Capitalism is just the market, with optional limited government, and perhaps democracy [Conway,D] |
| Full Idea: There are three types of capitalism: 1) the market - private ownership, labor contracts and profit, 2) limited government - the state provides goods the market cannot do, 3) limited government with democracy - with political freedom and elections. | |
| From: David Conway (Capitalism and Community [1996], II) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] I would have thought that capitalism is compatible with a fair degree of workplace democracy, which would make a fourth type. |
| 22256 | Capitalism prefers representative democracy, which avoids community decision-making [Conway,D] |
| Full Idea: By opting for representative rather than direct democracy, capitalism is said to preclude political community, for which the citizens of a state must possess a common will, which needs their direct participation in decisions. | |
| From: David Conway (Capitalism and Community [1996], V) | |
| A reaction: Conway does not accept this claim. I'm beginning to wonder whether the famous British electoral system is actually a capitalist conspiracy against the people. |
| 22255 | Capitalism breaks up extended families, and must then provide welfare for the lonely people [Conway,D] |
| Full Idea: It is said that capitalism encourages the breakup of extended families, which creates the need for extensive state welfare for those indigent members of society who can no longer rely on their own family to take care of them. | |
| From: David Conway (Capitalism and Community [1996], V) | |
| A reaction: Conway does not accept this claim. It seems to simplistic to say that capitalism is the sole culprit. Any rise of mechanisation in agriculture would break up rural extended families. |
| 22257 | Capitalism is anti-community, by only valuing individuals, and breaking up families [Conway,D] |
| Full Idea: Communitarns say capitalism is inimical to family community, because it encourages an individualistic mentality which only values self-fulfilment, and because it demands labour mobility which is disruptive of families. | |
| From: David Conway (Capitalism and Community [1996], VI) | |
| A reaction: Chicken-and-egg with the first one. Small entrepreneurs are individualists who seek their own gain. It is big capitalism that sucks in the others. Traditional community is based on labour-intensive agriculture. |