|
9455
|
Maybe proper names have the content of fixing a thing's category [Bealer]
|
|
Full Idea:
Some say that proper names have no descriptive content, but others think that although a name does not have the right sort of descriptive content which fixes a unique referent, it has a content which fixes the sort or category to which it belongs.
|
|
From:
George Bealer (Propositions [1998], §7)
|
|
A reaction:
Presumably 'Mary', and 'Felix', and 'Rover', and 'Smallville' are cases in point. There is a well known journalist called 'Manchester', a famous man called 'Hilary', a village in Hertfordshire called 'Matching Tie'... Interesting, though.
|
|
9454
|
The four leading theories of definite descriptions are Frege's, Russell's, Evans's, and Prior's [Bealer]
|
|
Full Idea:
The four leading theories of definite descriptions are Frege's, Russell's, Evans's, and Prior's, ...of which to many Frege's is the most intuitive of the four. Frege says they refer to the unique item (if it exists) which satisfies the predicate.
|
|
From:
George Bealer (Propositions [1998], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
He doesn't expound the other three, but I record this a corrective to the view that Russell has the only game in town.
|
|
3643
|
The concept of mind excludes body, and vice versa [Descartes]
|
|
Full Idea:
The concept of body includes nothing at all which belongs to the mind, and the concept of mind includes nothing at all which belongs to the body.
|
|
From:
René Descartes (Reply to Fourth Objections [1641], 225)
|
|
A reaction:
A headache? Hunger? The mistake, I think, is to regard the mind as entirely conscious, thus creating a sharp boundary between two aspects of our lives. As shown by blindsight, I take many of my central mental operations to be pre- or non-conscious.
|
|
9452
|
Propositions might be reduced to functions (worlds to truth values), or ordered sets of properties and relations [Bealer]
|
|
Full Idea:
The reductionist view of propositions sees them as either extensional functions from possible worlds to truth values, or as ordered sets of properties, relations, and perhaps particulars.
|
|
From:
George Bealer (Propositions [1998], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
The usual problem of all functional accounts is 'what is it about x that enables it to have that function?' And if they are sets, where does the ordering come in? A proposition isn't just a list of items in some particular order. Both wrong.
|
|
9451
|
Modal logic and brain science have reaffirmed traditional belief in propositions [Bealer]
|
|
Full Idea:
Philosophers have been skeptical about abstract objects, and so have been skeptical about propositions,..but with the rise of modal logic and metaphysics, and cognitive science's realism about intentional states, traditional propositions are now dominant.
|
|
From:
George Bealer (Propositions [1998], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
I personally strongly favour belief in propositions as brain states, which don't need a bizarre ontological status, but are essential to explain language, reasoning and communication.
|
|
22754
|
Saying the good is useful or choiceworth or happiness-creating is not the good, but a feature of it [Sext.Empiricus]
|
|
Full Idea:
Asserting that the good is 'the useful', or 'what is choiceworthy for its own sake', or 'that which contributes to happiness', does not teach us what good is but states its accidental property.
|
|
From:
Sextus Empiricus (Against the Ethicists (one book) [c.180], II.35)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to be a pretty accurate statement of Moore's famous Open Question argument. I read it in an Aristotelian way - that that quest is always for the essential nature of the thing itself, not for its role or function or use.
|
|
22755
|
Like a warming fire, what is good by nature should be good for everyone [Sext.Empiricus]
|
|
Full Idea:
Just as fire which is warmth-giving by nature warms all men, and does not chill some of them, so what is good by nature ought to be good for all, and not good for some but not good for others.
|
|
From:
Sextus Empiricus (Against the Ethicists (one book) [c.180], II.69)
|
|
A reaction:
This is going to confine the naturally good to the basics of life, which we all share. Is a love of chess a natural good? It seems to capture an aspect of human nature, without appealing to everyone. Sextus says nothing is good for everyone.
|
|
22756
|
If a desire is itself desirable, then we shouldn't desire it, as achieving it destroys it [Sext.Empiricus]
|
|
Full Idea:
If the desire for wealth or health is desirable, we ought not to purse wealth or health, lest by acquiring them we cease to desire them any longer.
|
|
From:
Sextus Empiricus (Against the Ethicists (one book) [c.180], II.81)
|
|
A reaction:
He is investigating whether desires can be desirable, and if so which ones. Roots of this are in Plato's 'Gorgias' on drinking water. Similar to 'if compassion is the highest good then we need lots of suffering'. Desire must be a means, not an end.
|