|
5784
|
In its primary and formal sense, 'true' applies to propositions, not beliefs [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
We call a belief true when it is belief in a true proposition, ..but it is to propositions that the primary formal meanings of 'truth' and 'falsehood' apply.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (On Propositions: What they are, and Meaning [1919], §IV)
|
|
A reaction:
I think this is wrong. A proposition such as 'it is raining' would need a date-and-time stamp to be a candidate for truth, and an indexical statement such as 'I am ill' would need to be asserted by a person. Of course, books can contain unread truths.
|
|
5783
|
Propositions of existence, generalities, disjunctions and hypotheticals make correspondence tricky [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
The correspondence of proposition and fact grows increasingly complicated as we pass to more complicated types of propositions: existence-propositions, general propositions, disjunctive and hypothetical propositions, and so on.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (On Propositions: What they are, and Meaning [1919], §IV)
|
|
A reaction:
An important point. Truth must not just work for 'it is raining', but also for maths, logic, tautologies, laws etc. This is why so many modern philosophers have retreated to deflationary and minimal accounts of truth, which will cover all cases.
|
|
5780
|
The three questions about belief are its contents, its success, and its character [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are three issues about belief: 1) the content which is believed, 2) the relation of the content to its 'objective' - the fact which makes it true or false, and 3) the element which is belief, as opposed to consideration or doubt or desire.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (On Propositions: What they are, and Meaning [1919], §III)
|
|
A reaction:
The correct answers to the questions (trust me) are that propositions are the contents, the relation aimed at is truth, which is a 'metaphysical ideal' of correspondence to facts, and belief itself is an indefinable feeling. See Hume, Idea 2208.
|
|
6474
|
Seeing is not in itself knowledge, but is separate from what is seen, such as a patch of colour [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
Undeniably, knowledge comes through seeing, but it is a mistake to regard the mere seeing itself as knowledge; if we are so to regard it, we must distinguish the seeing from what is seen; a patch of colour is one thing, and our seeing it is another.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (The Analysis of Mind [1921], Lec. VIII)
|
|
A reaction:
This is Russell's 1921 explanation of why he adopted sense-data (but he rejects them later in this paragraph). This gives a simplistic impression of what he intended, which has three components: the object, the 'sensibile', and the sense-datum.
|
|
6476
|
We cannot assume that the subject actually exists, so we cannot distinguish sensations from sense-data [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
If we are to avoid a perfectly gratuitous assumption, we must dispense with the subject as one of the actual ingredients of the world; but when we do this, the possibility of distinguishing the sensation from the sense-datum vanishes.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (The Analysis of Mind [1921], Lec. VIII)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the reason why Russell himself rejected sense-data. It is more normal, I think, to reject them simply as being superfluous. If the subject can simply perceive the sense-data, why can't they just perceive the object more directly?
|
|
6475
|
In perception, the self is just a logical fiction demanded by grammar [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
In perception, the idea of the subject appears to be a logical fiction, like mathematical points and instants; it is introduced, not because observation reveals it, but because it is linguistically convenient and apparently demanded by grammar.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (The Analysis of Mind [1921], Lec. VIII)
|
|
A reaction:
In 1912, Russell had felt that both the Cogito, and the experience of meta-thought, had confirmed the existence of a non-permanent ego, but here he offers a Humean rejection. His notion of a 'logical fiction' is behaviouristic. I believe in the Self.
|
|
5778
|
If we object to all data which is 'introspective' we will cease to believe in toothaches [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
If privacy is the main objection to introspective data, we shall have to include among such data all sensations; a toothache, for example, is essentially private; a dentist may see the bad condition of your tooth, but does not feel your ache.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (On Propositions: What they are, and Meaning [1919], §II)
|
|
A reaction:
Russell was perhaps the first to see why eliminative behaviourism is a non-starter as a theory of mind. Mental states are clearly a cause of behaviour, so they can't be the same thing. We might 'eliminate' mental states by reducing them, though.
|
|
5781
|
Our important beliefs all, if put into words, take the form of propositions [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
The important beliefs, even if they are not the only ones, are those which, if rendered into explicit words, take the form of a proposition.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (On Propositions: What they are, and Meaning [1919], §III)
|
|
A reaction:
This assertion is close to the heart of the twentieth century linking of ontology and epistemology to language. It is open to challenges. Why is non-propositional belief unimportant? Do dogs have important beliefs? Can propositions exist non-verbally?
|
|
5782
|
A proposition expressed in words is a 'word-proposition', and one of images an 'image-proposition' [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
I shall distinguish a proposition expressed in words as a 'word-proposition', and one consisting of images as an 'image-proposition'.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (On Propositions: What they are, and Meaning [1919], §III)
|
|
A reaction:
This, I think, is good, though it raises the question of what exactly an 'image' is when it is non-visual, as when a dog believes its owner called. This distinction prevents us from regarding all knowledge and ontology as verbal in form.
|
|
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.
|