|
18904
|
'Predicable' terms come in charged pairs, with one the negation of the other [Sommers, by Engelbretsen]
|
|
Full Idea:
Sommers took the 'predicable' terms of any language to come in logically charged pairs. Examples might be red/nonred, massive/massless, tied/untied, in the house/not in the house. The idea that terms can be negated was essential for such pairing.
|
|
From:
report of Fred Sommers (Intellectual Autobiography [2005]) by George Engelbretsen - Trees, Terms and Truth 2
|
|
A reaction:
If, as Rumfitt says, we learn affirmation and negation as a single linguistic operation, this would fit well with it, though Rumfitt doubtless (as a fan of classical logic) prefers to negation sentences.
|
|
18895
|
Logic which maps ordinary reasoning must be transparent, and free of variables [Sommers]
|
|
Full Idea:
What would a 'laws of thought' logic that cast light on natural language deductive thinking be like? Such a logic must be variable-free, conforming to normal syntax, and its modes of reasoning must be transparent, to make them virtually instantaneous.
|
|
From:
Fred Sommers (Intellectual Autobiography [2005], 'How We')
|
|
A reaction:
This is the main motivation for Fred Sommers's creation of modern term logic. Even if you are up to your neck in modern symbolic logic (which I'm not), you have to find this idea appealing. You can't leave it to the psychologists.
|
|
18893
|
Translating into quantificational idiom offers no clues as to how ordinary thinkers reason [Sommers]
|
|
Full Idea:
Modern predicate logic's methods of justification, which involve translation into an artificial quantificational idiom, offer no clues to how the average person, knowing no logic and adhering to the vernacular, is so logically adept.
|
|
From:
Fred Sommers (Intellectual Autobiography [2005], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
Of course, people are very logically adept when the argument is simple (because, I guess, they can test it against the world), but not at all good when the reasoning becomes more complex. We do, though, reason in ordinary natural language.
|
|
18903
|
Sommers promotes the old idea that negation basically refers to terms [Sommers, by Engelbretsen]
|
|
Full Idea:
If there is one idea that is the keystone of the edifice that constitutes Sommers's united philosophy it is that terms are the linguistic entities subject to negation in the most basic sense. It is a very old idea, tending to be rejected in modern times.
|
|
From:
report of Fred Sommers (Intellectual Autobiography [2005]) by George Engelbretsen - Trees, Terms and Truth 2
|
|
A reaction:
Negation in modern logic is an operator applied to sentences, typically writing '¬Fa', which denies that F is predicated of a, with Fa being an atomic sentence. Do we say 'not(Stan is happy)', or 'not-Stan is happy', or 'Stan is not-happy'? Third one?
|
|
18894
|
Predicates form a hierarchy, from the most general, down to names at the bottom [Sommers]
|
|
Full Idea:
We organise our concepts of predicability on a hierarchical tree. At the top are terms like 'interesting', 'exists', 'talked about', which are predicable of anything. At the bottom are names, and in between are predicables of some things and not others.
|
|
From:
Fred Sommers (Intellectual Autobiography [2005], 'Category')
|
|
A reaction:
The heirarchy seem be arranged simply by the scope of the predicate. 'Tallest' is predicable of anything in principle, but only of a few things in practice. Is 'John Doe' a name? What is 'cosmic' predicable of? Challenging!
|
|
20014
|
Actions include: the involuntary, the purposeful, the intentional, and the self-consciously autonomous [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are different levels of action, including at least: unconscious and/or involuntary behaviour, purposeful or goal-directed activity, intentional action, and the autonomous acts or actions of self-consciously active human agents.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
The fourth class is obviously designed to distinguish us from the other animals. It immediately strikes me as very optimistic to distinguish four (at least) clear categories, but you have to start somewhere.
|
|
20019
|
Maybe bodily movements are not actions, but only part of an agent's action of moving [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
Some say that the movement's of agent's body are never actions. It is only the agent's direct moving of, say, his leg that constitutes a physical action; the leg movement is merely caused by and/or incorporated as part of the act of moving.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 1.2)
|
|
A reaction:
[they cite Jennifer Hornsby 1980] It seems normal to deny a twitch the accolade of an 'action', so I suppose that is right. Does the continual movement of my tongue count as action? Only if I bring it under control? Does it matter? Only in forensics.
|
|
20021
|
Is the action the arm movement, the whole causal process, or just the trying to do it? [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
Some philosophers have favored the overt arm movement the agent performs, some favor the extended causal process he initiates, and some prefer the relevant event of trying that precedes and 'generates' the rest.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 1.2)
|
|
A reaction:
[Davidson argues for the second, Hornsby for the third] There seems no way to settle this, and a compromise looks best. Mere movement won't do, and mere trying won't do, and whole processes get out of control.
|
|
20022
|
To be intentional, an action must succeed in the manner in which it was planned [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
If someone fires a bullet to kill someone, misses, and dislodges hornets that sting him to death, this implies that an intentional action must include succeeding in a manner according to the original plan.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
[their example, compressed] This resembles Gettier's problem cases for knowledge. If the shooter deliberately and maliciously brought down the hornet's nest, that would be intentional murder. Sounds right.
|
|
20023
|
If someone believes they can control the lottery, and then wins, the relevant skill is missing [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
If someone enters the lottery with the bizarre belief that they can control who wins, and then wins it, that suggest that intentional actions must not depend on sheer luck, but needs competent exercise of the relevant skill.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
A nice companion to Idea 20022, which show that a mere intention is not sufficient to motivate and explain an action.
|
|
20025
|
We might intend two ways to acting, knowing only one of them can succeed [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
If an agent tries to do something by two different means, only one of which can succeed, then the behaviour is rational, even though one of them is an attempt to do an action which cannot succeed.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
[a concise account of a laborious account of an example from Bratman 1984, 1987] Bratman uses this to challenge the 'Simple View', that intention leads straightforwardly to action.
|
|
20031
|
On one model, an intention is belief-desire states, and intentional actions relate to beliefs and desires [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
On the simple desire-belief model, an intention is a combination of desire-belief states, and an action is intentional in virtue of standing in the appropriate relation to these simpler terms.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 4)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the traditional view found in Hume, and is probably endemic to folk psychology. They cite Bratman 1987 as the main opponent of the view.
|
|
20028
|
Groups may act for reasons held by none of the members, so maybe groups are agents [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
Rational group action may involve a 'collectivising of reasons', with participants acting in ways that are not rationally recommended from the individual viewpoint. This suggests that groups can be rational, intentional agents.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
[Pettit 2003] is the source for this. Gilbert says individuals can have joint commitment; Pettit says the group can be an independent agent. The matter of shared intentions is interesting, but there is no need for the ontology to go berserk.
|
|
20027
|
If there are shared obligations and intentions, we may need a primitive notion of 'joint commitment' [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
An account of mutual obligation to do something may require that we give up reductive individualist accounts of shared activity and posit a primitive notion of 'joint commitment'.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
[attributed to Margaret Gilbert 2000] If 'we' are trying to do something, that seems to give an externalist picture of intentions, rather like all the other externalisms floating around these days. I don't buy any of it, me.
|
|
20018
|
Strong Cognitivism implies a mode of 'practical' knowledge, not based on observation [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
Strong Cognitivists say intentions/beliefs are not based on observation or evidence, and are causally reliable in leading to appropriate actions, so this is a mode of 'practical' knowledge that has not been derived from observation.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 1.1)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed - Stanford unnecessarily verbose!] I see no mention in this discussion of 'hoping' that your action will turn out OK. We are usually right to hope, but it would be foolish to say that when we reach for the salt we know we won't knock it over.
|