8748
|
Logical positivists incorporated geometry into logicism, saying axioms are just definitions [Carnap, by Shapiro]
|
|
Full Idea:
The logical positivists brought geometry into the fold of logicism. The axioms of, say, Euclidean geometry are simply definitions of primitive terms like 'point' and 'line'.
|
|
From:
report of Rudolph Carnap (Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology [1950]) by Stewart Shapiro - Thinking About Mathematics 5.3
|
|
A reaction:
If the concept of 'line' is actually created by its definition, then we need to know exactly what (say) 'shortest' means. If we are merely describing a line, then our definition can be 'impredicative', using other accepted concepts.
|
13933
|
Existence questions are 'internal' (within a framework) or 'external' (concerning the whole framework) [Carnap]
|
|
Full Idea:
We distinguish two kinds of existence questions: first, entities of a new kind within the framework; we call them 'internal questions'. Second, 'external questions', concerning the existence or reality of the system of entities as a whole.
|
|
From:
Rudolph Carnap (Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology [1950], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
This nicely disposes of many ontological difficulties, but at the price of labelling most external questions as meaningless, so that the internal answers have very little commitment, and the external (big) questions are now banned. Not for me.
|
13935
|
We only accept 'things' within a language with formation, testing and acceptance rules [Carnap]
|
|
Full Idea:
To accept the thing world means nothing more than to accept a certain form of language, in other words, to accept rules for forming statements and for testing, accepting, or rejecting them.
|
|
From:
Rudolph Carnap (Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology [1950], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
If you derive your metaphysics from your language, then objects are linguistic conventions. But why do we accept conventions about objects?
|
13932
|
Empiricists tend to reject abstract entities, and to feel sympathy with nominalism [Carnap]
|
|
Full Idea:
Empiricists are in general rather suspicious with respect to any kind of abstract entities like properties, classes, relations, numbers, propositions etc. They usually feel more sympathy with nominalists than with realists (in the medieval sense).
|
|
From:
Rudolph Carnap (Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology [1950], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
The obvious reason is that you can't have sense experiences of abstract entities. I like the question 'what are they made of?' rather than the question 'how can I experience them?'.
|
13937
|
New linguistic claims about entities are not true or false, but just expedient, fruitful or successful [Carnap]
|
|
Full Idea:
The acceptance of new linguistic forms about entities cannot be judged as being either true or false because it is not an assertion. It can only be judged as being more or less expedient, fruitful, conducive to the aim for which the language is intended.
|
|
From:
Rudolph Carnap (Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology [1950], 3)
|
|
A reaction:
The obvious problem seems to be that a complete pack of lies might be successful for a very long time, if it plugged a critical hole in a major theory. Is success judged financially? How do we judge success without mentioning truth?
|
24073
|
Capitalists use their exceptional power to impose their own rules, and make the state their ally [Davies,W]
|
|
Full Idea:
Capitalists exploit their unrivalled control over time and space in order to impose their rules on everyone else. …It triumphed late, only becoming dominant in the 19th century, when it had conscripted the state as its ally.
|
|
From:
William Davies (Review of 'The Price is Wrong' by B.Christophers [2024], 24-04-04)
|
|
A reaction:
This so very much makes sense of the modern world. Nowadays capitalists are so wealthy that the state has largely become their pawn, rather than their ally. Populist leaders are their puppets (and are well rewarded).
|
24070
|
Economies have material, economic and capitalist layers [Davies,W]
|
|
Full Idea:
Braudel's economic history has three layers. At the bottom is material life of consumption, production, reproduction. Next is economic life of markets, of equals in exchange and competition. Top is capitalism, of opacity, monopoly, power, high profits.
|
|
From:
William Davies (Review of 'The Price is Wrong' by B.Christophers [2024], 24-04-04)
|
|
A reaction:
The point Davies emphasises here is the sharp distinction between the market economy and capitalism.
|
24074
|
Capitalism must mainly rely either on the labour market, or on the financial markets [Davies,W]
|
|
Full Idea:
According to Marxists, the one market capitalism cannot do without is the labour market, which creates saleable things. Others, influenced by Keynes, emphasise financial markets, where pieces of paper change hands on expectation of their value.
|
|
From:
William Davies (Review of 'The Price is Wrong' by B.Christophers [2024], 24-04-04)
|
|
A reaction:
Modern Britain fits the Keynesian account much better, given its low production, and very active (until recently) London financial market.
|
24072
|
Capitalism is the anti-market, with opacity, monopolies, powers, exceptional profits and wealth [Davies,W]
|
|
Full Idea:
Braudel sees capitalism as the 'anti-market': a world of opacity, monopoly, concentration of power and wealth, and the exceptional profits that can be achieved only by escaping the norms of 'economic life'.
|
|
From:
William Davies (Review of 'The Price is Wrong' by B.Christophers [2024], 24-04-04)
|
|
A reaction:
Given all the talk about the wonders of the 'free market' from right-wingers, this passage came as a revelation to me. Capitalists all dream of a monopoly, which is precisely the destruction of a market.
|
24071
|
Markets are transparent, with known prices and activity, and minimal profits [Davies,W]
|
|
Full Idea:
Markets are characterised by transparency. Prices are public, and all relevant activity is visible to everyone. And because of competition, profits are minimal, little more than a 'wage' for the seller.
|
|
From:
William Davies (Review of 'The Price is Wrong' by B.Christophers [2024], 24-04-04)
|
|
A reaction:
This account, from Braudel, is to distinguish markets from capitalism.
|