Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'From Stimulus to Science', 'Parthood and Identity across Time' and 'The General Theory of Employment'

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


3 ideas

2. Reason / B. Laws of Thought / 3. Non-Contradiction
To affirm 'p and not-p' is to have mislearned 'and' or 'not' [Quine]
     Full Idea: To affirm a compound of the form 'p and not-p' is just to have mislearned one or both of these particles.
     From: Willard Quine (From Stimulus to Science [1995], p.23), quoted by Robert Fogelin - Walking the Tightrope of Reason Ch.1
     A reaction: Quoted by Fogelin. This summarises the view of logic developed by the young Wittgenstein, that logical terms are 'operators', rather than referring terms. Of course the speaker may have a compartmentalised mind, or not understand 'p' properly.
9. Objects / E. Objects over Time / 5. Temporal Parts
Temporal parts is a crazy doctrine, because it entails constantly creating stuff ex nihilo [Thomson, by Koslicki]
     Full Idea: Thomson famously objects that the doctrine of temporal parts is 'a crazy metaphysic - obviously false', since it entails that material objects are constantly being generated ex nihilo (or, at least, the stuff of which they are composed is).
     From: report of Judith (Jarvis) Thomson (Parthood and Identity across Time [1983], p.210) by Kathrin Koslicki - The Structure of Objects 2.2
     A reaction: The related objections are to ask what the temporal 'width' of a part is, and whether the joins are visible.
24. Political Theory / D. Ideologies / 6. Liberalism / b. Liberal individualism
Laissez-faire individualism doesn't work, especially in troublesome times [Keynes]
     Full Idea: It is obvious that an individualist society left to itself does not work well or even tolerably. The more troublesome the times, the worse does a laissez-faire system work.
     From: Maynard Keynes (The General Theory of Employment [1936]), quoted by Ian Dunt - How to be a Liberal 7
     A reaction: I thought I was a Communitarian, but I may be a Keynesian Liberal, committed to a safety net welfare system. I haven't quite decided yet. Political philosophy is hopeless, if the ideas actually have to be implemented. What is the criterion of 'work'?