|
11103
|
We aren't stuck with our native conceptual scheme; we can gradually change it [Quine]
|
|
Full Idea:
We must not leap to the fatalistic conclusion that we are stuck with the conceptual scheme that we grew up in. We can change it bit by bit, plank by plank.
|
|
From:
Willard Quine (Identity, Ostension, and Hypostasis [1950], 5)
|
|
A reaction:
This is an interesting commitment to Strawson's 'revisionary' metaphysics, rather than its duller cousin 'descriptive' metaphysics. Good for Quine. Remember, though, Davidson's 'On the Very Idea of Conceptual Scheme'.
|
|
11092
|
A river is a process, with stages; if we consider it as one thing, we are considering a process [Quine]
|
|
Full Idea:
A river is a process through time, and the river stages are its momentary parts. Identification of the river bathed in once with the river bathed in again is just what determines our subject matter to be a river process as opposed to a river stage.
|
|
From:
Willard Quine (Identity, Ostension, and Hypostasis [1950], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
So if we take a thing which has stages, but instead of talking about the stages we talk about a single thing that endures through them, then we are talking about a process. Sounds very good to me.
|
|
11093
|
We don't say 'red' is abstract, unlike a river, just because it has discontinuous shape [Quine]
|
|
Full Idea:
'Red' is surely not going to be opposed to 'Cayster' [name of a river], as abstract to concrete, merely because of discontinuity in geometrical shape?
|
|
From:
Willard Quine (Identity, Ostension, and Hypostasis [1950], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
I've been slow to grasp the truth of this. However, Quine assumes that 'red' is concrete because 'Cayster' is, but it is perfectly arguable that 'Cayster' is an abstraction, despite all that water.
|
|
11101
|
General terms don't commit us ontologically, but singular terms with substitution do [Quine]
|
|
Full Idea:
The use of general terms does not commit us to admitting a corresponding abstract entity into our ontology, but an abstract singular term, including the law of putting equals for equals, flatly commits us to an abstract entity named by the term.
|
|
From:
Willard Quine (Identity, Ostension, and Hypostasis [1950], 4)
|
|
A reaction:
Does this mean that in 'for the sake of the children', I have to believe in 'sakes' if I can find a synonym which will substitute for it?
|
|
16695
|
Successive entities are in flux, flowing in existence, with different parts at different times [Oresme]
|
|
Full Idea:
For any time, some of a successive entity exists in one of its parts, and a totally different such exists in another part. …It is in continuous flux and transition, ..and flows in existence if it does not have the same existence over a whole time.
|
|
From:
Nicole Oresme (On 'Physics' [1346], III.6, dist.1), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 18.1
|
|
A reaction:
Pasnau says the successive entity is the whole made up of these changing parts, so it sounds very like the temporal stages view of Sider and Hawley.
|
|
17595
|
To unite a sequence of ostensions to make one object, a prior concept of identity is needed [Quine]
|
|
Full Idea:
The concept of identity is central in specifying spatio-temporally broad objects by ostension. Without identity, n acts of ostension merely specify up to n objects. ..But when we affirm identity of object between ostensions, they refer to the same object.
|
|
From:
Willard Quine (Identity, Ostension, and Hypostasis [1950], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
Quine says that there is an induction involved. On the whole, Quine seems to give a better account of identity than Geach or Wiggins can offer.
|
|
22200
|
If you eliminate the impossible, the truth will remain, even if it is weird [Conan Doyle]
|
|
Full Idea:
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
|
|
From:
Arthur Conan Doyle (The Sign of Four [1890], Ch. 6)
|
|
A reaction:
A beautiful statement, by Sherlock Holmes, of Eliminative Induction. It is obviously not true, of course. Many options may still face you after you have eliminated what is actually impossible.
|