|
21546
|
We can't sharply distinguish variables, domains and values, if symbols frighten us [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
Whoever is afraid of symbols can hardly hope to acquire exact ideas where it is necessary to distinguish 1) the variable in itself as opposed to its value, 2) any value of the variable, 3) all values, 4) some value.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (Review: Meinong 'Untersuchungen zur..' [1905], p.84)
|
|
A reaction:
Not the best example, perhaps, of the need for precision, but a nice illustration of the new attitude Russell brought into philosophy.
|
|
21545
|
I prefer to deny round squares, and deal with the difficulties by the theory of denoting [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
I should prefer to say that there is no such object as 'the round square'. The difficulties of excluding such objects can, I think, be avoided by the theory of denoting.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (Review: Meinong 'Untersuchungen zur..' [1905], p.81)
|
|
A reaction:
The 'theory of denoting' is his brand new theory of definite descriptions, which makes implicit claims of existence explicit, so that they can be judged. Why can't we just say that a round square can be an intentional object, but not a real object?
|
|
7322
|
Constitutive scepticism is about facts, and epistemological scepticism about our ability to know them [Miller,A]
|
|
Full Idea:
We should distinguish 'constitutive scepticism' (about the existence of certain sorts of facts) from the traditional 'epistemological scepticism' (which concedes that the sort of fact in question exists, but questions our right to claim knowledge of it).
|
|
From:
Alexander Miller (Philosophy of Language [1998], 4.7)
|
|
A reaction:
I would be inclined to call the first type 'ontological scepticism'. Miller is discussing Quine's scepticism about meaning. Atheists fall into the first group, and agnostics into the second. An important, and nicely simple, distinction.
|
|
7325
|
Dispositions say what we will do, not what we ought to do, so can't explain normativity [Miller,A]
|
|
Full Idea:
Dispositional facts are facts about what we will do, not about what we ought to do, and as such cannot capture the normativity of meaning.
|
|
From:
Alexander Miller (Philosophy of Language [1998], 6.2)
|
|
A reaction:
Miller is discussing language, but this raises a nice question for all behaviourist accounts of mental events. Perhaps there is a disposition to behave in a guilty way if you do something you think you shouldn't do. (Er, isn't 'guilt' a mental event?)
|
|
7324
|
Explain meaning by propositional attitudes, or vice versa, or together? [Miller,A]
|
|
Full Idea:
Grice wants to explain linguistic meaning in terms of the content of propositional attitudes, Dummett has championed the view that propositional attitudes must be explained by linguistic meaning, while Davidson says they must be explained together.
|
|
From:
Alexander Miller (Philosophy of Language [1998], 6.1)
|
|
A reaction:
A useful map. My intuition says propositional attitudes come first, for evolutionary reasons. We are animals first, and speakers second. Thought precedes language. A highly social animal flourishes if it can communicate.
|
|
7328
|
The principle of charity is holistic, saying we must hold most of someone's system of beliefs to be true [Miller,A]
|
|
Full Idea:
Properly construed, the principle of charity is a holistic constraint applying, not to individual beliefs, but rather to systems of belief: we must interpret a speaker so that most of the beliefs in his system are, by our lights, true.
|
|
From:
Alexander Miller (Philosophy of Language [1998], 8.7)
|
|
A reaction:
This is a lot more plausible than applying the principle to individual sentences, particularly if you are in the company of habitual ironists or constitutional liars.
|
|
22489
|
'Good' is an attributive adjective like 'large', not predicative like 'red' [Geach, by Foot]
|
|
Full Idea:
Geach puts 'good' in the class of attributive adjectives, such as 'large' and 'small', contrasting such adjectives with 'predicative' adjectives such as 'red'.
|
|
From:
report of Peter Geach (Good and Evil [1956]) by Philippa Foot - Natural Goodness Intro
|
|
A reaction:
[In Analysis 17, and 'Theories of Ethics' ed Foot] Thus any object can simply be red, but something can only be large or small 'for a rat' or 'for a car'. Hence nothing is just good, but always a good so-and-so. This is Aristotelian, and Foot loves it.
|