16984
|
I don't think possible worlds reductively reveal the natures of modal operators etc. [Kripke]
|
|
Full Idea:
I do not think of 'possible worlds' as providing a reductive analysis in any philosophically significant sense, that is, as uncovering the ultimate nature, from either an epistemological or a metaphysical view, of modal operators, propositions etc.
|
|
From:
Saul A. Kripke (Naming and Necessity preface [1980], p.19 n18)
|
|
A reaction:
I think this remark opens the door for Kit Fine's approach, of showing what modality is by specifying its sources. Possible worlds model the behaviour of modal inferences.
|
9385
|
The very act of designating of an object with properties gives knowledge of a contingent truth [Kripke]
|
|
Full Idea:
If a speaker introduced a designator into a language by a ceremony, then in virtue of his very linguistic act, he would be in a position to say 'I know that Fa', but nevertheless 'Fa' would be a contingent truth (provided F is not an essential property).
|
|
From:
Saul A. Kripke (Naming and Necessity preface [1980], p.14)
|
|
A reaction:
If someone else does the designation, I seem to have contingent knowledge that the ceremony has taken place. You needn't experience the object, but you must experience the ceremony, even if you perform it.
|
16983
|
Probability with dice uses possible worlds, abstractions which fictionally simplify things [Kripke]
|
|
Full Idea:
In studying probabilities with dice, we are introduced at a tender age to a set of 36 (miniature) possible worlds, if we (fictively) ignore everything except the two dice. …The possibilities are abstract states of the dice, not physical entities.
|
|
From:
Saul A. Kripke (Naming and Necessity preface [1980], p.16)
|
|
A reaction:
Interesting for the introduction by the great man of the words 'fictional' and 'abstract' into the discussion. He says elsewhere that he takes worlds to be less than real, but more than mere technical devices.
|
9379
|
A sentence is obvious if it is true, and any speaker of the language will instantly agree to it [Quine]
|
|
Full Idea:
A sentence is obvious if (a) it is true and (b) any speaker of the language is prepared, for any reason or none, to assent to it without hesitation, unless put off by being asked so obvious a question.
|
|
From:
Willard Quine (Reply to Hellman [1975], p.206), quoted by Paul Boghossian - Analyticity Reconsidered §III
|
|
A reaction:
This comes from someone who is keen to deny a priori knowledge, but what are we to make of the expostulations "It's obvious, you idiot!", and "Now I see it, it's obvious!", and "It seemed obvious, but I was wrong!"?
|
9284
|
Reasons are 'internal' if they give a person a motive to act, but 'external' otherwise [Williams,B]
|
|
Full Idea:
Someone has 'internal reasons' to act when the person has some motive which will be served or furthered by the action; if this turns out not to be so, the reason is false. Reasons are 'external' when there is no such condition.
|
|
From:
Bernard Williams (Internal and External Reasons [1980], p.101)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] An external example given is a family tradition of joining the army, if the person doesn't want to. Williams says (p.111) external reason statements are actually false, and a misapplication of the concept of a 'reason to act'. See Idea 8815.
|