Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'works', 'Grounding: an opinionated introduction' and 'Brainstorms:Essays on Mind and Psychology'

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

---

9 ideas

1. Philosophy / E. Nature of Metaphysics / 1. Nature of Metaphysics

17266	Using modal logic, philosophers tried to handle all metaphysics in modal terms [Correia/Schnieder]
	Full Idea: In the heyday of modal logic, philosophers typically tried to account for any metaphysical notions in modal terms.
	From: Correia,F/Schnieder,B (Grounding: an opinionated introduction [2012], 2.4)
	A reaction: Lewisian realism about possible worlds actually gets rid of purely 'modal' terms, but I suppose they include possible worlds in their remark. Annoying for modal logicians to be told they had a 'heyday' - a nice example of the rhetoric of philosophy.

2. Reason / B. Laws of Thought / 2. Sufficient Reason

17263	Why do rationalists accept Sufficient Reason, when it denies the existence of fundamental facts? [Correia/Schnieder]
	Full Idea: What is most puzzling about the rationalist tradition is the steadfast certainty with which the Principle of Sufficient Reason was often accepted, since it in effect denies that there are fundamental facts.
	From: Correia,F/Schnieder,B (Grounding: an opinionated introduction [2012], 2.2)
	A reaction: A very simple and interesting observation. The principle implies either a circle of reasons, or an infinite regress of reasons. Nothing can be labelled as 'primitive' or 'foundational' or 'given'. The principle is irrational!

7. Existence / C. Structure of Existence / 1. Grounding / a. Nature of grounding

17270	Is existential dependence by grounding, or do grounding claims arise from existential dependence? [Correia/Schnieder]
	Full Idea: We may take existential dependence to be a relation induced by certain cases of grounding, but one may also think that facts about existential dependence are prior to corresponding ground claims, and in fact ground those claims.
	From: Correia,F/Schnieder,B (Grounding: an opinionated introduction [2012], 4.3)
	A reaction: I would vote for grounding, since dependence seems more abstract, and seems to demand explanation, whereas grounding seems more like a feature of reality, and to resist further intrinsic explanation (on the whole).

7. Existence / C. Structure of Existence / 1. Grounding / c. Grounding and explanation

17268	Grounding is metaphysical and explanation epistemic, so keep them apart [Correia/Schnieder]
	Full Idea: To us it seems advisable to separate the objective notion of grounding, which belongs to the field of metaphysics, from the epistemically loaded notion of explanation.
	From: Correia,F/Schnieder,B (Grounding: an opinionated introduction [2012], 4.2)
	A reaction: Paul Audi is the defender of the opposite view. I'm with Audi. The 'epistemically loaded' pragmatic aspect is just contextual - that we have different interests in different aspects of the grounding on different occasions.

7. Existence / D. Theories of Reality / 8. Facts / a. Facts

17267	The identity of two facts may depend on how 'fine-grained' we think facts are [Correia/Schnieder]
	Full Idea: There is a disagreement on the issue of factual identity, concerning the 'granularity' of facts, the question of how fine-grained they are.
	From: Correia,F/Schnieder,B (Grounding: an opinionated introduction [2012], 3.3)
	A reaction: If they are very fine-grained, then no two descriptions of a supposed fact will capture the same details. If we go broadbrush, facts become fuzzy and less helpful. 'Fact' was never going to be a clear term.

15. Nature of Minds / B. Features of Minds / 4. Intentionality / b. Intentionality theories

3158	Theories of intentionality presuppose rationality, so can't explain it [Dennett]
	Full Idea: Intentional theory is vacuous as psychology because it presupposes and does not explain rationality or intelligence.
	From: Daniel C. Dennett (Brainstorms:Essays on Mind and Psychology [1978], p.15?)
	A reaction: Virtually every philosophical theory seems to founder because it presupposes something like the thing it is meant to explain. I agree that 'intentionality' is a slightly airy concept that would probably reduce to something better.

17. Mind and Body / B. Behaviourism / 3. Intentional Stance

3159	Beliefs and desires aren't real; they are prediction techniques [Dennett]
	Full Idea: Intentional systems don't really have beliefs and desires, but one can explain and predict their behaviour by ascribing beliefs and desires to them. This strategy is pragmatic, not right or wrong.
	From: Daniel C. Dennett (Brainstorms:Essays on Mind and Psychology [1978], p.7?)
	A reaction: If the ascription of beliefs and desires explains behaviour, then that is good grounds for thinking they might be real features of the brain, and even if that is not so, they are real enough as abstractions from brain events, like the 'economic climate'.

29. Religion / B. Monotheistic Religion / 4. Christianity / d. Heresy

16713	Philosophers are the forefathers of heretics [Tertullian]
	Full Idea: Philosophers are the forefathers of heretics.
	From: Tertullian (works [c.200]), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 20.2

29. Religion / D. Religious Issues / 1. Religious Commitment / e. Fideism

6610	I believe because it is absurd [Tertullian]
	Full Idea: I believe because it is absurd ('Credo quia absurdum est').
	From: Tertullian (works [c.200]), quoted by Robert Fogelin - Walking the Tightrope of Reason n4.2
	A reaction: This seems to be a rather desperate remark, in response to what must have been rather good hostile arguments. No one would abandon the support of reason if it was easy to acquire. You can't deny its engaging romantic defiance, though.