Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Good and Evil', 'Intro to III: Quantifiers' and 'Remarks on the forces of inorganic Nature'

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


4 ideas

5. Theory of Logic / G. Quantification / 4. Substitutional Quantification
Substitutional universal quantification retains truth for substitution of terms of the same type [Jacquette]
     Full Idea: The substitutional interpretation says the universal quantifier is true just in case it remains true for all substitutions of terms of the same type as that of the universally bound variable.
     From: Dale Jacquette (Intro to III: Quantifiers [2002], p.143)
     A reaction: This doesn't seem to tell us how it gets started with being true.
Nominalists like substitutional quantification to avoid the metaphysics of objects [Jacquette]
     Full Idea: Some substitutional quantificationists in logic hope to avoid philosophical entanglements about the metaphysics of objects, ..and nominalists can find aid and comfort there.
     From: Dale Jacquette (Intro to III: Quantifiers [2002], p.143)
     A reaction: This has an appeal for me, particularly if it avoids abstract objects, but I don't see much problem with material objects, so we might as well have a view that admits those.
22. Metaethics / C. The Good / 1. Goodness / a. Form of the Good
'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.
27. Natural Reality / A. Classical Physics / 1. Mechanics / d. Gravity
Gravity isn't a force, because it produces effects without diminishing [Mayer]
     Full Idea: If gravity be called a force, a cause is supposed which produces effects without itself diminishing, and incorrect conceptions of the causal connexions of things are thereby fostered.
     From: J.R. Mayer (Remarks on the forces of inorganic Nature [1842], p.199), quoted by Brian Ellis - Scientific Essentialism 8.03
     A reaction: This seems like a brilliant prelude to the proposal that gravity is actually the 'curvature' of space (whatever that is!).