|
18470
|
Maybe truth-making is an unanalysable primitive, but we can specify principles for it [Smith,B]
|
|
Full Idea:
The signs are that truth-making is not analysable in terms of anything more primitive, but we need to be able to say more than just that. So we ought to consider it as specified by principles of truth-making.
|
|
From:
Barry Smith (Truth-maker Realism: response to Gregory [2000], p.20), quoted by Fraser MacBride - Truthmakers 1.5
|
|
A reaction:
This is the axiomatic approach to such problems - treat the target concept as an undefinable, unanalysable primitive, and then give rules for its connections. Maybe all metaphysics should work like that, with a small bunch of primitives.
|
|
14024
|
Truthmaker has problems with generalisation, non-existence claims, and property instantiations [Crisp,TM]
|
|
Full Idea:
Truthmaker is controversial: what of truths like 'all ravens are black', or 'there are no unicorns'. And 'John is tall' is not made true by John or the property of being tall, but by the fusion of the two, but what could this non-mereological fusion be?
|
|
From:
Thomas M. Crisp (Presentism [2003], 3.4)
|
|
A reaction:
A first move is to include modal facts (or possible worlds) among the truthmakers. The unicorns are tricky, and seem to need all of actuality as their truthmaker. I don't see the tallness difficulty. Predication is odd, but so what?
|
|
6213
|
A man cannot will to will, or will to will to will, so the idea of a voluntary will is absurd [Hobbes]
|
|
Full Idea:
The will is not voluntary: for a man can no more say he will will, than he will will will, and so make an infinite repetition of the word 'will', which is absurd and insignificant.
|
|
From:
Thomas Hobbes (Human Nature [1640], Ch.XII.5)
|
|
A reaction:
A nice simple point, allied to Nietzsche's notion that thoughts are uncontrollable (Idea 2291). Even Aquinas, who is quite a fan of free will, spotted the problem (Idea 1854). Personally I agree with Hobbes. Free will is a shibboleth.
|
|
6210
|
Life has no end (not even happiness), because we have desires, which presuppose a further end [Hobbes]
|
|
Full Idea:
For an utmost end, in which the ancient philosophers have placed felicity, there is no such thing in this world, nor way to it: for while we live, we have desires, and desire presupposeth a further end.
|
|
From:
Thomas Hobbes (Human Nature [1640], Ch.VII.6)
|
|
A reaction:
Kant's definition of happiness (Idea 1452) seems to be the underlying idea, and hence with the same implication (of impossibility). However, an alcoholic locked in a brewery would seem to have all that Hobbes requires for happiness.
|
|
6212
|
Lust involves pleasure, and also the sense of power in pleasing others [Hobbes]
|
|
Full Idea:
Lust consists of two appetites together, to please, and to be pleased, and the delight men take in delighting is not sensual, but a pleasure or joy of the mind consisting in the imagination of the power they have so much to please.
|
|
From:
Thomas Hobbes (Human Nature [1640], Ch.IX)
|
|
A reaction:
Hobbes would rather burst a blood-vessel than admit any altruism. If you take pleasure in pleasing someone else, why can't that simply be because of the other person's pleasure, with which we sympathise, rather than relishing our own 'power'?
|
|
14020
|
'Eternalism' is the thesis that reality includes past, present and future entities [Crisp,TM]
|
|
Full Idea:
I use the term Eternalism for the thesis that reality includes past, present and future entities. (It is sometimes used for the view that all propositions have their truth-value eternally - it is always true or never true).
|
|
From:
Thomas M. Crisp (Presentism [2003], Intro n.1)
|
|
A reaction:
'Eternalism' strikes me as an excellent word for the former meaning, so I shall promote that, and quietly forget the second one. The idea that the future exists has always stuck in my craw, and the belief that Napoleon still exists strikes me as a weird.
|
|
14022
|
The only three theories are Presentism, Dynamic (A-series) Eternalism and Static (B-series) Eternalism [Crisp,TM]
|
|
Full Idea:
Three theories exhaust the options on time: presentism, dynamic eternalism (eternalism with the tensed dynamic A-series view of time, and the totality of events changing over time), and static eternalism (eternalism with the B-series).
|
|
From:
Thomas M. Crisp (Presentism [2003], 2.4)
|
|
A reaction:
I think the idea that reality is Static Eternalism is just a misunderstanding, arising from our imaginative ability to take a lofty objective overview of a very fluid reality. The other two are the serious candidates. Present, or Growing-block.
|