|
13857
|
Truth-functional possibilities include the irrelevant, which is a mistake [Edgington]
|
|
Full Idea:
How likely is a fair die landing on an even number to land six? My approach is, assume an even number, so three possibilities, one a six, so 'one third'; the truth-functional approach is it's true if it is not-even or six, so 'two-thirds'.
|
|
From:
Dorothy Edgington (Do Conditionals Have Truth Conditions? [1986], 3)
|
|
A reaction:
The point is that in the truth-functional approach, if the die lands not-even, then the conditional comes out as true, when she says it should be irrelevant. She seems to be right about this.
|
|
13853
|
It is a mistake to think that conditionals are statements about how the world is [Edgington]
|
|
Full Idea:
The mistake philosophers have made, in trying to understand the conditional, is to assume that its function is to make a statement about how the world is (or how other possible worlds are related to it), true or false, as the case may be.
|
|
From:
Dorothy Edgington (Do Conditionals Have Truth Conditions? [1986], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
'If pigs could fly we would never catch them' may not be about the world, but 'if you press this switch the light comes on' seems to be. Actually even the first one is about the world. I've an inkling that Edgington is wrong about this. Powers!
|
|
13854
|
Conditionals express what would be the outcome, given some supposition [Edgington]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is often necessary to suppose (or assume) that some epistemic possibility is true, and to consider what else would be the case, or would be likely to be the case, given this supposition. The conditional expresses the outcome of such thought processes.
|
|
From:
Dorothy Edgington (Do Conditionals Have Truth Conditions? [1986], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the basic Edgington view. It seems to involve an active thought process, and imagination, rather than being the static semantic relations offered by possible worlds analyses. True conditionals state relationships in the world.
|
|
16236
|
Maybe our persistence conditions concern bodies, rather than persons [Olson, by Hawley]
|
|
Full Idea:
Instead of attributing person-like persistence conditions to bodies, we could attribute body-like persistence conditions to persons, …so human persons are identical with human organisms.
|
|
From:
report of Eric T. Olson (The Human Animal [1997]) by Katherine Hawley - How Things Persist 5.10
|
|
A reaction:
In the case of pre-birth and advanced senility, Olson thinks we could have the body without the person, so person is a 'phase sortal' of bodies. A good theory, which seems to answer a lot of questions. 'Person' may be an abstraction.
|
|
6669
|
For 'animalism', I exist before I became a person, and can continue after it, so I am not a person [Olson, by Lowe]
|
|
Full Idea:
According to 'animalism', I existed before I was a person and I may well go one existing for some time after I cease to be a person; hence, I am not essentially a person, but a human organism.
|
|
From:
report of Eric T. Olson (The Human Animal [1997]) by E.J. Lowe - Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind Ch.10
|
|
A reaction:
There is a very real sense in which an extremely senile person has 'ceased to exist' (e.g. as the person I used to love). On the whole, though, I think that Olson is right, and yet 'person' is an important concept. Neither concept is all-or-nothing.
|
|
23257
|
We can treat people as equals, or actually treat them equally [Dworkin, by Grayling]
|
|
Full Idea:
Dworkin distinguishes between treating people as equals, that is, 'with equal concern and respect', and treating them equally. This latter can be unjust.
|
|
From:
report of Ronald Dworkin (Taking Rights Seriously [1977]) by A.C. Grayling - The Good State 2
|
|
A reaction:
The big difference I see between them is that the first is mere words, and the second is actions. Cf. 'thoughts and prayers' after US school shootings. How about equal entitlements, all things being equal?
|