Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'reports', 'Natural Theology' and 'Review of Bob Hale's 'Abstract Objects''

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


8 ideas

1. Philosophy / F. Analytic Philosophy / 4. Conceptual Analysis
We can't presume that all interesting concepts can be analysed [Williamson]
     Full Idea: We have no prior reason to suppose that philosophically significant concepts have interesting analyses into necessary and sufficient conditions.
     From: Timothy Williamson (Review of Bob Hale's 'Abstract Objects' [1988])
     A reaction: We might think that they are either analysable or primitive, and that failure of analysis invites us to take a concept as primitive. But maybe God can analyse it and we can't.
6. Mathematics / C. Sources of Mathematics / 1. Mathematical Platonism / a. For mathematical platonism
Platonism claims that some true assertions have singular terms denoting abstractions, so abstractions exist [Williamson]
     Full Idea: The Fregean argument for platonism is that some true assertions contain singular terms which denote abstract objects if they denote anything; since the assertions are true, the singular terms denote.
     From: Timothy Williamson (Review of Bob Hale's 'Abstract Objects' [1988])
     A reaction: I am perplexed that anyone would rest their view of reality on such an argument. The obvious comparison would be with true remarks about blatantly fictional characters, or blatantly invented concepts such as 'checkmate'.
25. Social Practice / D. Justice / 3. Punishment / c. Deterrence of crime
The greatest deterrence for injustice is if uninjured parties feel as much indignation as those who are injured [Solon, by Diog. Laertius]
     Full Idea: Men can be most effectively deterred from committing injustice if those who are not injured feel as much indignation as those who are.
     From: report of Solon (reports [c.600 BCE]) by Diogenes Laertius - Lives of Eminent Philosophers 01.So.10
28. God / B. Proving God / 3. Proofs of Evidence / b. Teleological Proof
Unlike a stone, the parts of a watch are obviously assembled in order to show the time [Paley]
     Full Idea: When we come to inspect a watch we perceive (what we could not discover in a stone) that its several parts are put together for a purpose, to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day.
     From: William Paley (Natural Theology [1802], Ch 1)
     A reaction: Microscopic examination of the stone would have surprised Paley. Should we infer a geometer because the sun is spherical? Crytals look designed, but are explained by deeper chemistry.
From the obvious purpose and structure of a watch we must infer that it was designed [Paley]
     Full Idea: The inference is inevitable that the watch had a maker; that there must have existed, at some time, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who designed its use.
     From: William Paley (Natural Theology [1802], Ch 1)
     A reaction: It rather begs the question to refer to an ordered structure as a 'design'. Why do we think it is absurd to think the the 'purpose' of the sun is to benefit mankind? Suppose we found a freakish natural sundial in the woods.
Even an imperfect machine can exhibit obvious design [Paley]
     Full Idea: It is not necessary that a machine be perfect, in order to show with what design it was made.
     From: William Paley (Natural Theology [1802], Ch 1)
     A reaction: This encounters Hume's point that you will then have to infer that the designer contains similar imperfections. If you look at plagues, famines and mothers dying in childbirth (see Mill), you might wish the designer had never started.
All the signs of design found in a watch are also found in nature [Paley]
     Full Idea: Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature.
     From: William Paley (Natural Theology [1802], Ch.3)
     A reaction: This is far from obvious. It was crucial to the watch analogy that we immediately see its one self-evident purpose. No one looks at nature and says 'Aha, I know what this is all for'.
No organ shows purpose more obviously than the eyelid [Paley]
     Full Idea: The eyelid defends the eye; it wipes it; it closes it in sleep. Are there, in any work of art whatever, purposes more evident than those which this organ fulfils?
     From: William Paley (Natural Theology [1802], p.24), quoted by Armand Marie LeRoi - The Lagoon: how Aristotle invented science 031
     A reaction: Nice to have another example, in addition to the watch. He is not wholly wrong, because it is impossible to give an evolutionary account of the development of the eyelid without referring to some sort of teleological aspect. The eyelid has a function.