5 ideas
| 15549 | If it were true that nothing at all existed, would that have a truthmaker? [Lewis] |
| Full Idea: If there was absolutely nothing at all, then it would have been true that there was nothing. Would there have been a truthmaker for this truth? | |
| From: David Lewis (A world of truthmakers? [1998], p.220) | |
| A reaction: This is a problem for Lewis's own claim that 'truth supervenes on being', as well as the more restricted truthmakers invoked by Armstrong. |
| 3016 | Even the gods cannot strive against necessity [Pittacus, by Diog. Laertius] |
| Full Idea: Even the gods cannot strive against necessity. | |
| From: report of Pittacus (reports [c.610 BCE]) by Diogenes Laertius - Lives of Eminent Philosophers 01.5.4 |
| 19691 | Unlike knowledge, you can achieve understanding through luck [Grimm] |
| Full Idea: It may be that understanding is compatible with luck, in a way that knowledge is not. | |
| From: Stephen R. Grimm (Understanding [2011], 3) | |
| A reaction: [He cites Kvanvig and Prichard] If so, then we cannot say that knowledge is a lesser type of understanding. If you ask a trusted person how a mechanism works, and they have a wild guess that is luckily right, you would then understand it. |
| 19690 | 'Grasping' a structure seems to be modal, because we must anticipate its behaviour [Grimm] |
| Full Idea: 'Graspng' a structure would seem to bring into play something like a modal sense or ability, not just to register how things are, but also to anticipate how certain elements of the system would behave. | |
| From: Stephen R. Grimm (Understanding [2011], 2) | |
| A reaction: In the case of the chronology of some historical events, talking of 'grasping' or 'understanding' seems wrong because the facts are static and invariant. That seems to support the present idea. But you might 'understand' a pattern if you can reproduce it. |
| 19692 | You may have 'weak' understanding, if by luck you can answer a set of 'why questions' [Grimm] |
| Full Idea: There may be a 'weak' sense of understanding, where all you need to do is to be able to answer 'why questions' successfully, where one might have come by this ability in a lucky way. | |
| From: Stephen R. Grimm (Understanding [2011], 3) | |
| A reaction: We can see this point (in Idea 19691), but the idea that one could come by true complex understanding of something by purely lucky means is a bit absurd. Surely you would get one or two why questions wrong? 100%, just by luck? |