|
15649
|
In semantic theories of truth, the predicate is in an object-language, and the definition in a metalanguage [Halbach]
|
|
Full Idea:
In semantic theories of truth (Tarski or Kripke), a truth predicate is defined for an object-language. This definition is carried out in a metalanguage, which is typically taken to include set theory or another strong theory or expressive language.
|
|
From:
Volker Halbach (Axiomatic Theories of Truth (2005 ver) [2005], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
Presumably the metalanguage includes set theory because that connects it with mathematics, and enables it to be formally rigorous. Tarski showed, in his undefinability theorem, that the meta-language must have increased resources.
|
|
11175
|
Logical concepts rest on certain inferences, not on facts about implications [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
The nature of the logical concepts is given, not by certain logical truths, but by certain logical inferences. What properly belongs to disjunction is the inference from p to (p or q), rather than the fact that p implies (p or q).
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Senses of Essence [1995], §3)
|
|
A reaction:
Does this mean that Fine is wickedly starting with the psychology, rather than with the pure truth of the connection? Frege is shuddering. This view seems to imply that the truth table for 'or' is secondary.
|
|
15651
|
Instead of saying x has a property, we can say a formula is true of x - as long as we have 'true' [Halbach]
|
|
Full Idea:
Quantification over (certain) properties can be mimicked in a language with a truth predicate by quantifying over formulas. Instead of saying that Tom has the property of being a poor philosopher, we can say 'x is a poor philosopher' is true of Tom.
|
|
From:
Volker Halbach (Axiomatic Theories of Truth (2005 ver) [2005], 1.1)
|
|
A reaction:
I love this, and think it is very important. He talks of 'mimicking' properties, but I see it as philosophers mistakenly attributing properties, when actually what they were doing is asserting truths involving certain predicates.
|
|
11176
|
The property of Property Abstraction says any suitable condition must imply a property [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
According to the principle of Property Abstraction, there is, for any suitable condition, a property that is possessed by an object just in case it conforms to the condition. This is usually taken to be a second-order logical truth.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Senses of Essence [1995], §4)
|
|
A reaction:
Fine objects that it is implied that if Socrates is essentially a man, then he essentially has the property of being a man. Like Fine, I think this conclusion is distasteful. A classification is not a property, at least the way most people use 'property'.
|
|
14330
|
To be realists about dispositions, we can only discuss them through their categorical basis [Armstrong]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is only to the extent that we relate disposition to 'categorical basis', and difference of disposition to difference of 'categorical basis', that we can speak of dispositions. We must be Realists, not Phenomenalists, about dispositions.
|
|
From:
David M. Armstrong (A Materialist Theory of Mind (Rev) [1968], 6.VI)
|
|
A reaction:
It is Armstrong's realism which motivates this claim, because he thinks only categorical properties are real. But categorical properties seem to be passive, and the world is active.
|
|
11173
|
Being a man is a consequence of his essence, not constitutive of it [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
If we distinguish 'constitutive' from 'consequential' essence, ..then the essence of Socrates will, in part, be constituted by his being a man. But being a man (or a mountain) will merely be consequential upon, and not constitutive of, his essence.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Senses of Essence [1995], §3)
|
|
A reaction:
Yes yes yes. I think it is absurd to say that the class to which something belongs is part of its essential nature, given that it presumably can only belong to the class if it already has a certain essential nature. What did Frankenstein construct?
|
|
11179
|
If there are alternative definitions, then we have three possibilities for essence [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
If there are alternative definitions for an essence, we must distinguish three notions. There is the essence as the manifold (the combined definitions), or as the range of alternative definitions (with component essences), or there is the common essence.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Senses of Essence [1995], §8)
|
|
A reaction:
Fine opts for the third alternative (what the definitions all have in common) as the best account. He says (p.68) 'definitive' properties come from one definition, and 'essential' properties from every possible definition.
|
|
6498
|
Armstrong suggests secondary qualities are blurred primary qualities [Armstrong, by Robinson,H]
|
|
Full Idea:
According to D.M. Armstrong and others, when we perceive secondary qualities we are in fact perceiving primary qualities in a confused, indistinct or blurred way.
|
|
From:
report of David M. Armstrong (A Materialist Theory of Mind (Rev) [1968], 270-90) by Howard Robinson - Perception III.1
|
|
A reaction:
This is obviously an attempt to fit secondary qualities into a reductive physicalist account of the mind. Personally I favour Armstrong's project, but doubt whether this strategy is necessary. I just don't think there is anything 'primary' about redness.
|
|
5690
|
A mental state without belief refutes self-intimation; a belief with no state refutes infallibility [Armstrong, by Shoemaker]
|
|
Full Idea:
For Armstrong, introspection involves a belief, and mental states and their accompanying beliefs are 'distinct existences', so a state without belief shows states are not self-intimating, and the belief without the state shows beliefs aren't infallible.
|
|
From:
report of David M. Armstrong (A Materialist Theory of Mind (Rev) [1968]) by Sydney Shoemaker - Introspection
|
|
A reaction:
I agree with Armstrong. Introspection is a two-level activity, which animals probably can't do, and there is always the possibility of a mismatch between the two levels, so introspection is neither self-intimating nor infallibe (though incorrigible).
|
|
5493
|
If pains are defined causally, and research shows that the causal role is physical, then pains are physical [Armstrong, by Lycan]
|
|
Full Idea:
Armstrong and Lewis said that mental items were defined in terms of typical causes and effects; if, as seems likely, research reveals that a particular causal niche is occupied by a physical state, it follows that pain is a physical state.
|
|
From:
report of David M. Armstrong (A Materialist Theory of Mind (Rev) [1968]) by William Lycan - Introduction - Ontology p.5
|
|
A reaction:
I am not fully convinced of the first step in the argument. It sounds like the epistemology and the ontology have got muddled (as usual). We define mental states as we define electrons, in terms of observed behaviour, but what are they?
|