Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'A Puzzle about Belief', 'The Structure and Content of Truth' and 'works'

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


3 ideas

1. Philosophy / H. Continental Philosophy / 3. Hermeneutics
Hermeneutics of tradition is sympathetic, hermeneutics of suspicion is hostile [Ricoeur, by Mautner]
     Full Idea: Ricoeur distinguishes a hermeneutics of tradition (e.g. Gadamar), which interprets sympathetically looking for hidden messages, and a hermeneutics of suspicion (e.g. Nietzsche, Freud) which sees hidden drives and interests.
     From: report of Paul Ricoeur (works [1970]) by Thomas Mautner - Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy p.249
     A reaction: Obviously the answer is somewhere between the two. Nietzsche's suspicion can be wonderful, but Freud's can seem silly (e.g. on Leonardo). On the whole I am on the 'tradition' side, because great thinkers can rise above their culture (on a good day).
3. Truth / C. Correspondence Truth / 3. Correspondence Truth critique
Correspondence theories can't tell you what truths correspond to [Davidson]
     Full Idea: The real objection to correspondence theories is that such theories fail to provide entities to which truth vehicles (as statements, sentence, or utterances) can be said to correspond.
     From: Donald Davidson (The Structure and Content of Truth [1990], p.304), quoted by Fred Sommers - Intellectual Autobiography Notes 23
     A reaction: This is the remark which provoked Sommers to come out with Idea 18901, which strikes me as rather profound.
18. Thought / B. Mechanics of Thought / 5. Mental Files
Puzzled Pierre has two mental files about the same object [Recanati on Kripke]
     Full Idea: In Kripke's puzzle about belief, the subject has two distinct mental files about one and the same object.
     From: comment on Saul A. Kripke (A Puzzle about Belief [1979]) by François Recanati - Mental Files 17.1
     A reaction: [Pierre distinguishes 'London' from 'Londres'] The Kripkean puzzle is presented as very deep, but I have always felt there was a simple explanation, and I suspect that this is it (though I will leave the reader to think it through, as I'm very busy…).